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





Exhibit 10.6



FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
LINN ENERGY, LLC SEVERANCE PLAN
The Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Linn Energy, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), previously adopted the Linn Energy, LLC Severance Plan (the “Plan”).  The Company hereby amends the Plan effective on the date the Committee approves the amendment (the “Amendment Effective Date”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Company established, and the Committee adopted, the Plan, under which the Company offers specified severance benefits to eligible employees of the Company and the Subsidiaries, in the event of certain involuntary terminations of employment;
WHEREAS, Section 8.1 of the Plan provides that the Committee or the Board may amend the Plan at any time, and from time to time, for any reason in the Company’s sole discretion;
WHEREAS, the Company now desires to amend the Plan to provide that a Participant shall not be entitled to any benefits under the Plan if (i) the Participant is terminated as a result of the sale or other disposition of a plant, facility, division, operating assets or Subsidiary or any similar transaction, and (ii) in connection with such transaction, the Participant is offered continued employment with the purchaser or any of its affiliates in a comparable position to the one held by the Participant immediately prior to his or her date of termination, as determined in the Company’s sole discretion; and
WHEREAS, capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Plan.
AMENDMENTS
1.    Section 2.21 of the Plan is hereby amended to add the following text:
“A Qualifying Termination will not have occurred for purposes of this Plan, if (i) the Participant is terminated as a result of the sale or other disposition of a plant, facility, division, operating assets or Subsidiary or any similar transaction, and (ii) in connection with such transaction, the Participant is offered continued employment with the purchaser or any of its affiliates with the same base salary as was in effect as of immediately before such transaction and at a location within fifty (50) miles of the primary location at which the Participant worked immediately before such transaction, in each case, as determined in the Company’s sole discretion.”


2.    Except as set specifically amended above, the Plan will remain in full force and effect.


 1







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has cause the execution of this Amendment by its duly authorized officer, effective as of the Amendment Effective Date.
	
			
	 
	LINN ENERGY, LLC

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	/s/ Candice J. Wells

	 
	Name:
	Candice J. Wells

	 
	Title:
	Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	Effective Date:  July 22, 2016








 2
# C_2023304EN.01000601.xml

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2023 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e. V v dm-drogerie markt Gmbh + Co. KG

(Case C-296/23, dm-drogerie markt)

(2023/C 304/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e. V

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: dm-drogerie markt Gmbh + Co. KG

Question referred

Is a ‘similar indication’ within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 72(3) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 (1) only such an indication contained in an advertisement which, in the same manner as the terms expressly listed in that provision, downplays properties of the biocide as regards the risks from the product to human health, animal health or the environment or its efficacy by means of a blanket statement, or does a ‘similar indication’ include all terms which, in respect of the risks from the product to human health, animal health or the environment or its efficacy, downplay the risks in a manner comparable to the terms expressly listed but are not necessarily also general in nature like those terms?

---

(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).

---
#### In the Matter of Michael B. Neth, Appellant, v Mary E. Sherman, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[801 NYS2d 216]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R. Adams, J.), entered August 17, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Matter of Neth v Sherman*(21 AD3d 1368 [2005]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Smith, Pine and Hayes, JJ.
EXHIBIT 10.2



 





EMPLOYEE
AGREEMENT AMENDMENT


 


THIS
AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into on June 19, 2015 by and between SharpSpring, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”) and Travis Whitton (“Employee”).


 


	 	1.	This
    Agreement amends that certain Employee Agreement dated September 8, 2014 made and entered into by the parties hereto (the
    “Employee Agreement”). Capitalized terms herein have the same meaning as used in the Employee Agreement,
    unless otherwise noted.
	 	 	 
	 	2.	The
    Vesting Schedule contained in Item I. of Appendix B of the Employee Agreement is amended to read as follows:
    
	 	 	 
	 	 	Vesting
    Schedule: The options vest as follows: 50% vest on December 31, 2016; 25% vest on December
    31, 2017; and 25% vest on December 31, 2018. The option grant shall be made pursuant to SMTP’s 2010 Employee
    Stock Plan and subject to the terms of the SMTP Employee Stock Plan’s standard non-statutory stock option agreement.
	 	 	 
	 	3.	Item
    II. shall be inserted into Appendix B of the Employee Agreement, which shall read as follows:
	 	 	 
	 	 	II.
    Quarterly Bonus Compensation: 
	 	 	 
	 	 	Employee
    shall be eligible for bonus compensation that will be paid on a quarterly basis (the “Quarterly Bonus”) that will
    be earned and payable as follows: 
	 	 	 
	 	 	The
    annual bonus target amount is $20,000 (the Quarterly Bonus target amount is $5,000), and will be based on the performance
    of the executive group and the individual Employee and based upon overall SMTP, Inc. performance. 
	 	 	 
	 	 	The
    Quarterly Bonus is earned at the close of the applicable quarter and is intended to be paid shortly after SMTP, Inc reports
    its financials publicly each quarter.
	 	 	 
	 	 	If
    Employee’s employment is terminated for any reason, Employee shall be paid (a) the full Quarterly Bonus earned, as determined
    solely by SMTP’s Board of Directors, for the most recently completed quarter and if Employee’s employment is terminated
    by the Company or by mutual agreement, Employee shall be paid (b) a pro-rated Quarterly Bonus, as determined solely by SMTP’s
    Board of Directors, for the calendar quarter in which termination occurs. 
	 	 	 
	 	4.	All
    other provisions of the Employee Agreement remain in full force and effect, other than any provision that conflicts with the
    terms and spirit of this Agreement.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the date first written above.


 


	 	SHARPSPRING,
    INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Richard Carlson
	 	 	Richard
    Carlson, 
	 	 	President
	 	 	 
	 	EMPLOYEE
	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/
    Travis Whitton
	 	 	Travis
    Whitton
STATE v. PARKS.

No. COA08-145.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 7, 2008.

Certification Date October 27, 2008.

Appeal from Cleveland (06CRS6595, 06CRS6596, 06CRS6597).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated and remanded in part; no error in part.
In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 3, 2008. 

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 602) entitled 

‘‘An Act to develop the next generation of parental control 

technology’’, do pass with the following 

AMENDMENT: 

Strike section 2 and redesignate section 3 as section 

2. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 602 

AMENDMENT
HARLEYSVILLE INS. v. BUZZ OFF INSECT.

No. 272A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 13, 2008.

David L. Brown, John I. Malone, Jr., Greensboro, Martha P. Brown, for Harleysville Mutual Ins. Co.

Mack Sperling, John S. Buford, Greensboro, Cecilia O. Miller, Diana S. Casey, San Diego, CA, for International Garment Tech.

Gary K. Sue, Greensboro, Michael A. Hamilton, for Erie Insurance.

David Neal Allen, Charlotte, for NC Assoc. of Defense Attys.

*902Theodore B. Smyth, Stephen D. Martin, Raleigh, for Property Casualty Insurers.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th day of November 2008 by Property Casualty Insurers Association of America for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i). By order of the Court in conference this the 13th day of November 2008."
----

----

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

|                                    |                                                                                                                                           |   |
|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  May 6,  2011 | /s/ David K. Young                                                                                                                             |   |
|                                    | David K. Young                                                                                                                                 |   |
|                                    | President, Chief Operating Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer (Principal  Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |   |

----

----
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 487 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 487

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the National Organ Transplant Act to clarify that kidney 
 paired donations shall not be considered to involve the transfer of a 
                human organ for valuable consideration.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Living Kidney Organ Donation 
Clarification Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL ORGAN TRANSPLANT ACT.

    Section 301(a) of the National Organ Transplant Act (42 U.S.C. 
274e(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes 
of this section, kidney paired donation shall not be considered to 
involve the transfer of a human organ for valuable consideration.''.

SEC. 3. REPORT.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and 
annually thereafter, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report that details 
the progress made towards understanding the long-term health effects of 
living organ donation.

            Passed the Senate February 15, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 487

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend the National Organ Transplant Act to clarify that kidney 
 paired donations shall not be considered to involve the transfer of a 
                human organ for valuable consideration.
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gregory F. Hughes, Treasurerof the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
| 1.     |   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of  Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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. |

 
|              | /s/ Gregory  F. Hughes                                                        |   |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:        | Gregory F. Hughes                                                             |   |
| Title:       | Treasurer                                                                     |   |
|         | of Reckson Associates Realty Corp., the sole general  partner of the Company. |
|         |                                                                          |
| May 22, 2007 |                                                                          |

 

----
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-11289

Summary Calendar

 

ERNESTO S. GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS, a 

Municipal Corporation, ET AL.,

Defendants,

CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS, a

Municipal Corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:96-CV-183

- - - - - - - - - -

August 14, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ernesto Gonzalez appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment in favor of the City of Lubbock, Texas, and

dismissing Gonzalez’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. 

Gonzalez also appeals the district court’s protective order

limiting his discovery of certain internal affairs and personnel

files of police officers within the Lubbock Police Department. 
No. 97-11289 

-2-

Gonzalez argues that the district court abused its discretion in

limiting his discovery of the Lubbock Police Department’s

internal affairs files and the personnel files and that the

district court erred in granting a summary judgment in favor of

the City of Lubbock concerning his claims that the City had a

policy or custom of condoning police misconduct, that the City

failed to train and supervise its officers adequately, and that

police officers initially stopped Gonzalez’s vehicle because he

was Hispanic. We have reviewed the record and parties’ briefs

and the AFFIRM the district court’s summary judgment for

essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court. 

Gonzalez v. City of Lubbock, Texas, No. 5:96-CV-183 (N.D. Tex.

Sept. 25, 1997).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 18.1

                         [LETTERHEAD OF ERNST & YOUNG]

May 25, 2001



Mr. George R. Mihalko
Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
The Sports Authority, Inc.
3383 N. State Road 7
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33319

Dear Mr. Mihalko:

Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of The Sports Authority, Inc.
(the "Company") included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 5, 2001,
describes a change in the method of accounting for inventories.  Prior to the
change, the Company's inventories were valued under the retail inventory method.
Under the Company's new accounting method, inventories will be valued at the
lower of weighted average cost or market. There are no authoritative criteria
for determining a "preferable" inventory accounting method based on the
particular circumstances; however, we conclude that the change to the lower of
weighted average cost or market method for valuing inventories is to an
acceptable alternative method which, based on your business judgment to make
this change and for the stated reasons, is preferable in your circumstances. We
have not conducted an audit in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of any financial statements of the Company as of
any date or for any period subsequent to February 3, 2001, and therefore we do
not express any opinion on any financial statements of The Sports Authority,
Inc. subsequent to that date.

                                                   Very truly yours,


                                                   /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
STATE of North Carolina v. Wayne Thomas JOHNSON.

No. 119P00-20.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Wayne Thomas Johnson, Pro Se.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney Generals, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 7th day of March 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Alamance County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th day of April 2008."

TIMMONS-GOODSON, J., recused.
Exhibit 10.11


SECURITY AGREEMENT





This Security Agreement is executed at 11150 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1050, Los Angeles, CA 90064 by The
Robert E. and Margaret M. Petersen Trust (herein called Debtor);





OWNER(S) OF COLLATERAL





As security for the payment and performance of all of Debtors obligations to Advanced Engine Technologies, Inc. (herein
called AET), irrespective of the manner in which or the time at which such obligations arose or shall arise, and whether direct or indirect, alone or with others, absolute or contingent, Debtor does hereby grant a continuing security
interest in the personal property of Debtor, whether now or hereafter owned or in existence and all proceeds thereof (herein called Collateral), which Collateral is described as:





All personal property assets owned in whole or in part by Debtor, wherever located.








THE ROBERT E. AND MARGARET M. PETERSEN TRUSTBy:

/s/    ROBERT E. PETERSENIts:

Trustee
PARKER v. SCOTT.

No. COA07-935.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 17, 2008.

Certification Date July 7, 2008.

Appeal from Davie (05CVD376).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 53686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17851]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Fire Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement, 
Saguaro National Park, AZ

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability of the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement for the Fire Management Plan, Saguaro National Park.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 
U.S.C. 4332(C), the National Park Service announces the availability of 
a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Fire Management Plan, 
Saguaro National Park, Arizona.

DATES: The National Park Service will execute a Record of Decision 
(ROD) no sooner than 30 days following publication by the Environmental 
Protection Agency of the Notice of Availability of the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement.

ADDRESSES: Information will be available for public inspection in the 
office of the Superintendent, Sarah Craighead, Saguaro National Park, 
Headquarters and Rincon Mountain District, 3693 South Old Spanish 
Trail, Tucson, AZ 85730-5601, phone 520-733-5101; and at the following 
locations:
    Internet: http://www.nps.gov/sagu/pphtml/documents.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Parrish, Fuels Management 
Specialist, Saguaro National Park, Headquarters and Rincon Mountain 
District, 3693 South Old Spanish Trail, Tucson, AZ 85730-5601, phone 
520-733-5132, or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3c77594a5552636c5d4e4e554f547c524c4f125b534a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5b103e2d3235040b3a29293228331b352b28753c342d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: August 3, 2005.
Roger Maxwell,
Acting Director, Intermountain Region, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 05-17851 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2023112EN.01003801.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/38

---

Action brought on 3 February 2023 — Pollen + Grace v EUIPO — Grace Foods (POLLEN + GRACE)

(Case T-41/23)

(2023/C 112/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pollen + Grace Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Johnson, Barrister-at-Law, and L. Buckley, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grace Foods Ltd (Castries, Saint Lucia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark POLLEN + GRACE — Application for registration No 17 099 623

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2022 in Case R 1815/2021-4

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 Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and to pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---