alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AMENDMENT NO. 1 to
                               ------------------
                                OPTION AGREEMENT
                                ----------------

     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 ("Amendment"), dated November 22, 2010, is to that
certain OPTION AGREEMENT (the "Original Agreement") entered into as of October
31, 2010, by and between Current Energy Partners Corporation, a Delaware
corporation ("Grantor" or "CEP"), and High Plains Gas, LLC, a Wyoming limited
liability company ("Grantee" or "HPG").
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

     (a)     CONFLICT.  In  the  event  there is a conflict between the terms of
the  Original  Agreement  with this Amendment, the terms of this Amendment shall
control  any  interpretation.  Unless  this  Amendment  expressly  amends  or
supplements the language of the Original Agreement, the Original Agreement shall
remain  in  full  force and effect.  Unless otherwise defined in this Amendment,
terms  defined  in  the  Original  Agreement  shall be similarly defined herein.

     (b)     AMENDMENT.  Section (a) of the Original Agreement is hereby amended
to read as follows:

     "Grantor hereby grants to Grantee, for $100, the covenants and promises
contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the option (the
"Option") to purchase Grantor's Interest in M Purchase for the amount of (i)
$1,500,000 (the "Cash Consideration") and (ii) 11,250,000 newly issued
restricted shares of common stock of HPGI (22,500,000 newly issued shares if the
exercise is subsequent to the proposed stock dividend referenced below) (the
"Shares"), subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.  The
Shares shall be issued and delivered within 10 business days after exercise of
the Option hereunder.  The Cash Consideration shall be payable to Grantor on the
earlier of (i) the closing of a proposed PIPE financing for a minimum
consideration of $10,000,000 to Grantee, which is anticipated on or before
December 31, 2010, or (ii) January 31, 2011.  Upon exercise of the Option,
Grantor shall execute and enter into a Member Interest Purchase Agreement in the
form as attached as Exhibit A hereto."

     [remainder of this page intentionally left blank]


<PAGE>
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have executed this Amendment to the
Option Agreement as of the date first above written.

GRANTOR:
CURRENT ENERGY PARTNERS CORPORATION

By: /s/ Brandon Hargett
Its: Secretary Director


GRANTEE:
HIGH PLAINS GAS, LLC
By: /s/ Mark D. Hettinger
Its: Managing Member
STATE of North Carolina v. Jatue BALDWIN.

No. COA15-299.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

___________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

August 26, 2008 

136933 

GRADY ZODIAC BROWN,

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

 Defendant-Appellee. 

Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

 SC: 136933 

 CoA: 285762 

On order of the Chief Justice, plaintiff-appellant having failed to pay the 

partial filing fee as required by the order of July 24, 2008, the Clerk of the Court is 

hereby directed to close this file. 

jm 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

August 26, 2008 

Clerk
----

(2004/C 33 E/232)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2149/03

by Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat

The debates conducted and the statements made concerning Eurostat in recent months have highlighted a number of examples of incorrect practice: criminal proceedings are opened against individuals without their knowledge and without them first being heard by the judicial authorities, the press prints serious accusations which seem to go well beyond the information available, and the staff of Eurostat see their professional competence called into question and their work disrupted by stringent checks which are in some cases out of all proportion to the alleged actions which prompted them.

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that the rights of the persons involved are properly respected in the proceedings now under way?

What measures does it intend to take if departments are shown to have breached the rules on the protection of those rights, despite their obligation to observe them?

Does it take the view that the reporting of the case has blown the accusations up out of all proportion to the facts?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2003)

The intense media interest in the Eurostat investigations even before their completion does not help to provide an objective picture of the situation, particularly as some aspects have been taken out of context. To this extent, certain press articles may, regrettably, have compromised full compliance with the principle of the presumption of innocence.

At the same time, the investigations currently under way within Eurostat represent a response both to Parliament's request in the context of the follow-up to the 2001 discharge procedure and to the Commission's desire to clarify the situation completely and establish that the problems identified have been definitely addressed and that, if necessary, further action can be taken. This is not in any way to question the competence of Eurostat staff. Moreover, the rules governing investigations offer all officials or staff means of redress pursuant to the provisions of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations.

Lastly, with regard to recent developments relating to the situation in Eurostat and the action this calls for, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the series of measures adopted at its meetings on 9 and 23 July 2003.

----
In re S.E.M.

No. COA15-524.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 1, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Dequonta MCKINNON.

No. COA15-650.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated and remanded for entry of new sentencing judgments.
STATE v. Juan Carlos BENITEZ.

No. 24PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Benitez, Juan Carlos.

Staples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender, for State of North Carolina.

Amy Kunstling Irene, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Vernon K. Stewart, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of September *8592015 by State of NC to Strike Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  XXI Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form  10-QSB
for  the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XXI,  Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,  and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XXI,  Inc., each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as  adopted
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) 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 Partnership.


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              August 5, 2005



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              August 5, 2005
# C_2023127EN.01004601.xml

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/46

---

Action brought on 6 February 2023 — UG v ERCEA

(Case T-45/23)

(2023/C 127/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: UG (represented by: N. Flandin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

consequently,

| — | annul the applicant’s 2021 appraisal report; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the applicant’s 2021 appraisal report;

| — | alternatively, annul the 2021 appraisal report in so far as it contains the contested comments; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul the 2021 appraisal report in so far as it contains the contested comments;

| — | as well as, and in so far as necessary, annul the ERCEA decision of 26 October 2022 in that it rejects the applicant’s complaint against her 2021 appraisal report; |
| --- | --- |

—

as well as, and in so far as necessary, annul the ERCEA decision of 26 October 2022 in that it rejects the applicant’s complaint against her 2021 appraisal report;

| — | order the defendant to pay all of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the reasons for the contested decision are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, a failure properly to take into account the previous appraisal reports, an infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials the European Union and an infringement of the principle of the annual nature of the appraisal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the reasons for the contested decision are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, a failure properly to take into account the previous appraisal reports, an infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials the European Union and an infringement of the principle of the annual nature of the appraisal.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision and comments are vitiated by manifest errors of assessment, a breach of the principle of care, a failure to take into account the particular professional context, which was disrupted by the Covid pandemic in 2021 and the disproportionate nature of the comments as against the reality of the situation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision and comments are vitiated by manifest errors of assessment, a breach of the principle of care, a failure to take into account the particular professional context, which was disrupted by the Covid pandemic in 2021 and the disproportionate nature of the comments as against the reality of the situation.

---
ATIAPO v. GOREE LOGISTICS, INC., et al.

No. 139P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

John F. Scarborough, for Owen Thomas, Inc.

Lawrence P. Margolis, Charlotte, for Goree Logistics, Inc., et al.

Kenneth C. Martin, Charlotte, for Atiapo, Frances.

*860Marc X. Sneed, Assistant Attorney General.

John F. Scarbrough, Charlotte, for Owen Thomas, Inc.

Sidney S. Eagles, Jr., Raleigh, for American Trucking Association, Inc. and North Carolina Trucking Association.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the conditional motion filed on the 21st of April 2015 by American Trucking Association, Inc. and North Carolina Trucking Association for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000930832                        
<NAME>                        JetFleet III
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                          3,230,990
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      34,150
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                3,265,140
<PP&E>                                         10,396,180
<DEPRECIATION>                                  1,340,270
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,375,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             476,500
<BONDS>                                        11,076,350
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     1,661,450
<COMMON>                                          815,200
<OTHER-SE>                                       (654,200)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,735,300
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  578,270
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  256,410
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                228,170
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    93,690
<INCOME-TAX>                                          120
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                93,570
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       93,570
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.11
        


</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 10, 2021

NO. 03

- 19

- 00070

- CV

Vergo Patio Gardens, Inc., Appellant

v.

Railroad Commission of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFOR E JU STICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

REVERSED AND REMANDED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on November 19, 2018 . Having

rev iewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in

the trial court’s judgment affirming the Commission ’ s order

. Therefore, the judgment of the t rial

court affirming the Commission’s order is reversed, the Co mmission’s order is reversed

, and the

cause is remanded to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s

opinion

. The appell ee shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in thi s Court and in the

court below.
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 10-K/A
 þ
    
    ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007oro
    
    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934For the transition period from  to
 Commission file number: 0-238001
 LaCrosse Footwear, Inc.
 (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 Wisconsin    39-1446816   17634 NE Airport Way  Portland, Oregon   97230
   Title of Class:
    
    Exchange on which securities are registered:Common Stock, $.01 par value
    
    NASDAQ Global Market
  o þ
 o þ
 þ o
 o
   Large accelerated filer o
    
    Accelerated filer o
    
    Non-accelerated filer o
    
    Small Reporting Company þ(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
 o þ




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  ITEM 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement SchedulesSIGNATURESEXHIBIT 31.1EXHIBIT 31.2    Table of Contents  Explanatory Note
  
 ITEM 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules
  Exhibit No.
    
    Title(31.1)
    
    Certification of the President & Chief Executive Officer pursuant
to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934(31.2)
    
    Certification of the Executive Vice President & Chief Financial
Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 -2-




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURES
  LACROSSE FOOTWEAR, INC.By
    /s/ Joseph P. SchneiderJoseph P. SchneiderPresident and Chief Executive Officer -3-
STATE v. CROSS.

No. COA08-379.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Iredell (05CRS53581, 05CRS53582).

Case reported without published opinion. No error in part; judgment arrested as to 05CRS53582.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jay Mikal BROOKS-BEY.

No. 497P12-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Jay Mikal Brooks, for Brooks, Jay Mikal.

Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 6th of November 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Granville County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."

Ervin, J. recused.
STATE of North Carolina v. Troy KORNYA.

No. COA15-795.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
HERNDON v. HERNDON.

No. 363A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 30, 2015.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of November 2015 by Plaintiff for Additions to Record on Appeal:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of November 2015."
NC ASS'N OF EDUCATORS, INC., et al. v. STATE of NC.

No. 228A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 17, 2015.

Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General, for The State of North Carolina.

Burton Craige, Raleigh, for North Carolina Association of Educators, Inc., et al.

Narendra K. Ghosh, Chapel Hill, for North Carolina Association of Educators, Inc., et al.

Philip A. Hostak, for North Carolina Association of Educators, Inc., et al.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, for The State of North Carolina.

Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Attorney General, for The State of North Carolina.

J. Michael McGuinness, Elizabethtown, for Southern States Police Benevolent Association, et al.

Hardy Lewis, Raleigh, for State Employess Association of North Carolina, Inc.

Michael L. Carpenter, Gastonia, for N.C. Retired Governmental Employees' Association.

Marcus R. Carpenter, for N.C. Retired Government Employees' Association.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of December 2015 by State Employees Association of NC, Inc. for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of December 2015."

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).
STATE v. MONROE.

No. COA08-570.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 18, 2008.

Certification Date December 8, 2008.

Appeal from Guilford (06CRS87066, 06CRS87067, 06CRS87072, 06CRS87073).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE v. WASHINGTON.

No. COA08-201.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 7, 2008.

Certification Date October 27, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (05CRS210732, 05CRS210733, 05CRS210734, 05CRS210736, 05CRS31762).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 23, 2013

d1216

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2013

147815

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147815

COA: 309341

Berrien CC: 2004-404680-FC

EDWIN DANTREL MERIDY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 24, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Brian WISE.

No. COA15-317.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136511 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136511 

 COA: 281387 

Muskegon CC: 03-048789-FH

JAMES W. KIRKLAND,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 31, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk