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








Exhibit 10.1




SECOND AMENDMENT TO JANUARY 22, 2013 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.




WHEREAS, FairPoint Communications, Inc. (the “Company”) has heretofore entered into an Employment Agreement dated January 22, 2013 (the “Agreement”), amended by a First Amendment to January 22, 2013 Employment Agreement dated August 14, 2015 (“First Amendment”), by and between Ajay Sabherwal (the “Executive”) and the Company and the parties thereto desire to amend the Agreement in the manner set forth below. 


NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned parties to the Agreement agree that the Agreement shall be amended as follows, and that there is mutual, adequate and lawful consideration the receipt of which each acknowledges through execution of this Second Amendment. 


		
	1.
	The Term of Employment as defined in Section 2 of the Agreement, and as amended in Paragraph 1 of the First Amendment, shall continue through December 31, 2019, unless terminated sooner or renewed as provided in the Agreement. 




		
	2.
	Except as specifically provided above, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.




Wherefore, the parties hereto agree to this Second Amendment, with the foregoing changes being effective as of May 16, 2016.


FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.




/s/ Paul H. Sunu                
By:    Paul H. Sunu
Title:    Chief Executive Officer


EXECUTIVE




/s/ Ajay Sabherwal                
Ajay Sabherwal
STATE v. MANN.

No. COA07-1395.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 1, 2008.

Certification Date July 21, 2008.

Appeal from Hyde (06CRS50073).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
SALTER v. WILLIS.

No. COA07-1059.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 5, 2008.

Certification Date August 25, 2008.

Appeal from Carteret (05CVS1142).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
ORR v. ORR

No. S08F1175.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 30, 2008.

Judgments affirmed without opinion (Supreme Court Rule 59).
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1237/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1237/2014 of 18 November 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1237/2014                     

# of 18 November 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing                           a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79,                           (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

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, 18 November 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund IX, L.P. (the Registrant) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of
one of the General Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|                                                      
|/S/    LEO F. WELLS,
III                              
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief Executive Officer May 11, 2006



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|                                                        
|/S/    DOUGLAS P.
WILLIAMS                              
|Douglas P. Williams Chief Financial Officer
May 11, 2006
##### 



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 the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended
September 25, 2004 of Edelbrock Corporation (the Company) as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Aristedes T. Feles, Vice- President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. § 78m(a) or § 78o(d));
and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company. November 19, 2004
    ARISTEDES T. FELESAristedes T. FelesVice-President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________

)

BRIDGETTE A. ACKLIN, )

 ) 

 Plaintiff, )

 )

 v. ) Civil Action No. 13-1073 (RBW)

 ) 

CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY )

OF AMERICA, )

 )

 Defendant. )

__________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM

This matter is before the Court on the defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) 

and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By Order of August 30, 2013, the plaintiff, 

proceeding pro se, was advised about responding to the defendant’s motion and the 

consequences if she did not respond by October 4, 2013. Specifically, the plaintiff was warned 

that her failure to respond by the deadline might result in summary dismissal of the case on what 

would be treated as a conceded motion. The plaintiff has neither responded to the defendant’s

motion nor sought additional time to do so. Hence, the Court will grant the defendant’s motion 

to dismiss as conceded and will dismiss the case.1

_______s/______________

Reggie B. Walton

DATE: November 1, 2013 United States District Judge

 1

 A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM SEC
     FORM  10-Q  DATED  March  31,  1999 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
     REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     POUNDS STERLING
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.6140
<CASH>                                         263,381
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  17,106
<ALLOWANCES>                                   4,760
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         586,694
<DEPRECIATION>                                 104,036
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 862,002
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        831,617
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,478
<OTHER-SE>                                     162,620
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   862,002
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               27,303
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  41,637
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (14)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             23,445
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                55,414
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            55,414
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   55,414
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
Form of stock grant acknowledgement letter



  
 Exhibit 10.16.1

              , 20    

 Single Touch Systems Inc. 
 2235
Encinitas Blvd., Suite 210 
 Encinitas, CA 92024 
 Re:   2009 Stock Plan Award  
 Gentlemen: 

I hereby acknowledge receipt of              shares of common stock of
Single Touch Systems Inc. (the “Company”), awarded to me under the Company’s 2009 Employee and Consultant Stock Plan, and I further acknowledge that the award of such shares serves as satisfaction in full for
$             of services previously invoiced by me to the Company. 
  

	
	 Very truly yours,

	
	  
 Participant
# C_2023189EN.01004101.xml

| 30.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/41

---

Action brought on 16 April 2023 — Fractal Analytics v EUIPO — Fractalia Remote Systems (FRACTALIA)

(Case T-194/23)

(2023/C 189/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Fractal Analytics, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fractalia Remote Systems, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark FRACTALIA — European Union trade mark No 3 620 887

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2023 in Case R 859/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 in connection with Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 in connection with Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of Article 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of Article 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.

---
REINHARDT v. GLENDALE COMPANIES, INC.

No. COA07-1123.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 1, 2008.

Certification Date July 21, 2008.

Appeal from Jackson (06CVS05).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Alisa Wilson Danforth v. Fry’s Electronics, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 2

- 00 739

- CV

Trial court case number: 2011

- 00093

Trial court: 281st District Court of Harris County

On August 7 , 201 2 , appellant, Alisa Wilson Danforth , filed an affidavit of indigence in

the trial court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 20.1(a)(2)(A). The district clerk has filed a clerk’s record on indigence containing the trial court’s August 20, 2012 order sustaining a contest to appellant’s

affidavit of indigence

. See id. 20.1(e)(1), (i)(4). Appellant did not file a motion seeking review of the trial court’s order within 10 days of the order. See id. 20 .1(j)(1) , (2) . Therefore, the required filing fee is due.

A ppellant is ORDERED to pay one

- half of the $175 filing fee to this Court no later than 10 days from the date of this order and the other one

- half of the $175 filing fee to this Court no

later than 30 days from the date of this order , or the Court may dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P . 5; 42.3.

It is further ORDERED that, no later than 30 days from the date of this order, appellant

f ile with this Court proof that s he has paid or made arrangements to pay for the preparation of the

clerk’s record , or the appeal may be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 34.5(a), 35.3(a)(2), 37.3(b).

Finally, it is ORDERED that, no later than 30 days from the date of this order, appellant

file wi th this Court proof that s he has requested and paid or made arrangements to pay for preparation of the reporter’s record, or the Court may consider and decide only those issues or points that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 34.6(b)(1), 35.3(b)(2), (b)(3), (c), 37.3(c).

It is so ORDERED

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: July 25, 2013
Order entered July 9, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 21

- 00328

- CV

ELDA TELLE , Appellant

V.

CAPITAL TITLE OF TEXAS, LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from the 471st Ju dicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 471

- 01185

- 2021

O RDER

Before the Court is appellee’s July 8, 2021 unopposed motion for an

extension of time to file its brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and

extend the time to July 19, 2021

.

/s/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
WILLIAMS v. HOMEQ SERVICING CORP.

No. 382A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

John F. Bloss, Greensboro, for Williams.

Prior report: 184 N.C.App. 413, 646 S.E.2d 381.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th day of March 2008 by Defendant to Withdraw Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 10th day of April 2008."
#### Pamela Serla, Appellant, v Harold F. Jacobsen et al., Defendants, and Jaco Transportation, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[800 NYS2d 565]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J), entered *467August 23, 2004, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Jaco Transportation, Inc., and John Georges which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured in a two-vehicle accident on Old Country Road in Melville, when her westbound mini-van collided head-on with an eastbound vehicle operated by the defendant Harold F. Jacobsen. At her deposition, the plaintiff testified that a short time before her collision with the Jacobsen vehicle, a mini-school bus operated by the defendant John Georges and owned by the defendant Jaco Transportation, Inc. (hereinafter collectively the respondents), left the eastbound lane and skidded across the westbound lane of travel in front of her. According to the plaintiff, the bus eventually collided with a guardrail abutting the shoulder of the westbound lane, and came to rest on the shoulder of the westbound lane. The plaintiff also testified that the bus “was far enough ahead of [her] that it didn’t cause [her] to lose control of [her] vehicle” or alter her direction of travel. She further stated that she had already passed the mini-school bus without difficulty and was traveling in the westbound lane when she first observed Jacobsen’s vehicle entering the westbound lane and coming directly toward her.

Accepting the plaintiff’s version of events as true for purposes of this appeal *(see Rizk v Cohen,*73 NY2d 98, 103 [1989]; *McKee v J&J Otsego Props.,*277 AD2d 787 [2000]), the vehicle driven by Georges clearly was not a proximate cause of the subsequent collision between the plaintiffs vehicle and the Jacobsen vehicle. Thus, the respondents established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against them *(see Whitehead v Reithoffer Shows,*304 AD2d 754, 755 [2003]). The plaintiff, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In particular, the plaintiff cannot rely on Jacobsen’s version of the accident— which squarely contradicts her own—in order to raise a triable issue of fact as to the cause of the accident.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondents’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Adams, J.P., S. Miller, Ritter and Fisher, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                     FORM 1

                                   (Section 5)

                                   COMPANY ACT

                                   MEMORANDUM

         I wish to be formed into a Company with limited liability under the
Company Act in pursuance of this Memorandum.

         1.       The name of the Company is MILLENNIUM RESOURCES INC.

         2.       The authorized capital of the Company consists of TWENTY FIVE
                  MILLION (25,000,000) Common shares without par value.

         3.       I agree to take the number of shares in the Company set
                  opposite my name.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULL NAME, RESIDENT ADDRESS AND                    NUMBER OF SHARE TAKEN
OCCUPATION OF SUBSCRIBER                               BY SUBSCRIBER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                <C>
_________________________________
ROBERT M. FOLEY                                    One (1) Common share
#2204-2075 Comox Street
Vancouver, B.C.
Businessman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL SHARES TAKEN:                                One (1) Common share
------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>

                      DATED the 22nd day of December, 1986.
# C_2023054EN.01002201.xml

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/22

---

Action brought on 23 December 2022 — 3M v EUIPO (Representation of two luminous yellow bands with a silver grey band between)

(Case T-801/22)

(2023/C 54/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: 3M Company (St. Paul, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: T. de Haan, and S. Vandezande, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of two luminous yellow bands with a silver grey band between) — Application for registration No 16 438 962

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2022 in Case R 1151/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---