alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.39


CKE
Restaurants, Inc.




Amendment
No. 5


To


Employment
Agreement




This
Amendment No. 5 (the “Amendment”) to
Employment Agreement is made effective as of January 26, 2010, by and between
CKE Restaurants, Inc. (the “Company”) and Noah J.
Griggs (the “Employee”).




RECITALS:




A.  The
Company and the Employee entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of
January 2004, and amended on December 6, 2005, March 20, 2007, June 11, 2007 and
December 16, 2008 (the “Agreement”).




B.  The
Company and Employee now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth
below.






AGREEMENT




1.  Other Compensation and
Fringe Benefits.  Section 4(d) of the Agreement is hereby
amended to extend the bonus provided for therein to fiscal year
2011.




2.  Definitions.  Terms
used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the respective meanings
assigned to them in the Agreement.




3.  Counterparts.  This
Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original, and all of which shall constitute one
Amendment.




4.  Terms and Conditions of
Agreement.  Except as specifically amended by this Amendment,
all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.






[Signature
Page Follows]










IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed by the undersigned as of the date
first written above.





/s/ Noah J.
      GriggsNoah J.
    Griggs
 
 CKE Restaurants,
      Inc.By:
                  /s/ Andrew F.
      PuzderAndrew F.
      Puzder,Chief Executive
      Officer
# C_2008092EN.01004701.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/47

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 February 2008 — Skoulidi v Commission

(Case F-4/07) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Officials - Exchanges of officials between the Commission and the Member States - Making available an EU official to the Greek administration - Refusal - Action for damages - Non-pecuniary loss - Pre-litigation procedure - Admissibility - Substantive conditions giving rise to the non-contractual liability of the Community)

(2008/C 92/94)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Eleni-Eleftheria Skoulidi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M.D. Martin and M. Velardo, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Action for compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the appointing authority of 28 March 2006, refusing to allow her secondment to the Greek Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs under the Scheme of Exchanges of officials between the Commission and the Member States

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007, p. 44.

1

---
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(18 U.S.C. 1350)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of UAP HoldingCorp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 27, 2007, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, L. KennethCordell, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.1350), that, to my knowledge:

(1)                   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)                   The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: July 3, 2007
| By:    | **/s/ L.  Kenneth Cordell**                | ** ** |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|------------|
|   | **L.  Kenneth Cordell**                    | ** ** |
|   | **President  and Chief Executive Officer** | ** ** |
|   | **Principal  Executive Officer**           | ** ** |

 

1

----
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 
  






 
 NUMBER 
ICD- 
I 
INDEPENDENCE 
CONTRACT DRILLING 
SHARES 
CUSIP 453415 30 9 
SEE REFERENCE TO RESTRICTIONS ON BACK 
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
THIS CERTIFIES THAT 
SPECIMEN 
IS THE OWNER OF 
FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $.01 PER SHARE, OF

INDEPENDENCE CONTRACT DRILLING, INC. 
transferable only on the books of the
Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. 
WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. 
Dated: 
Independence Contract Drilling Inc. 
CORPORATE 
SEAL 
2011 
DELAWARE 
* 
PRESIDENT 
SECRETARY 
COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: 
AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, LLC 
(Brooklyn, NY) 
TRANSFER AGENT 
AND REGISTRAR 
BY 
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 
© SECURITY-COLUMBIAN UNITED STATES BANKNOTE COMPANY 1960 







 



 
 The Corporation shall furnish without charge to each stockholder who so requests a statement of the powers, designations, preferences
and relative, participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock of the Corporation or series thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights. Such requests shall be made to the
Corporation’s Secretary at the principal office of the Corporation. 
The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate,
shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
TEN COM — as tenants in common 
TEN ENT — as tenants by the entireties 
JT TEN — as joint tenants with right of
survivorship and not as tenants in common 
COM PROP — as community property

UNIF GIFT MIN ACT — Custodian 
(Cust) (Minor) 
under Uniform Gifts to Minors 
Act 
(State) 
UNIF TRF MIN ACT — Custodian (until age ) 
(Cust) 
under Uniform Transfers 
(Minor) 
to Minors Act 
(State) 
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR
OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) 
Shares of the common stock represented by the within Certificate and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint 
Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. 
Dated 
NOTICE: The signature(s) to this assignment must correspond with the name(s) as written
upon the face of the certificate in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatsoever. 
SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED 
The signature(s) must be guaranteed by a brokerage firm or a financial institution that is a member of a securities approved Medallion program, such as Securities Transfer Agents
Medallion Program (STAMP), Stock Exchanges Medallion Program (SEMP) or New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Medallion Signature Program (MSP).
# C_2008158EN.01001702.xml

| 21.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/17

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 April 2008 — PubliCare Marketing Communications v OHIM (Publicare)

(Case T-358/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Publicare - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Fortuitous event - Excusable error - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2008/C 158/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: PubliCare Marketing Communications (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: B. Mohr, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 June 2007 (Case R-157/2007-4) concerning an application for registration of word mark Publicare as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders PubliCare Marketing Communications GmbH to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PubliCare Marketing Communications GmbH to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**** 

**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 annual report of Berry Plastics Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-KA for the fiscal year ended October 1, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jonathan D. Rich, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Jonathan D. Rich_________

Jonathan D. Rich

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

 

Date:   September 7, 2012

----
# C_2008128EN.01002805.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/28

---

Order of the President of the Court of 19 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-422/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 128/60)

Language of the case: Spanish

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
NO. 07-08-0058-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	SEPTEMBER 4, 2008

	______________________________

	CORRINE FRAIDE, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

	NO. B17197-0704; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant, Corrine Fraide, pleaded guilty to the offense of driving while intoxicated with a child under the age of 15 years and was assessed a term of confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for one year and a fine of $1,000 with the state jail time being probated.  Appellant was placed on community supervision for two years.  Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke community supervision alleging a number of violations of the appellant’s terms and conditions of probation.  Appellant pleaded “Not True” to the allegations contained in the State’s motion to revoke community supervision.  After hearing the evidence, the trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision and revoked her probation and sentenced her to serve the original term of one year in a state jail facility.  This appeal followed.  We affirm.

	Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967).  In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Id. at 744- 45.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court’s judgment.  Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response.  Appellant has not filed a response.

	By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous.  We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

	Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.1

							Mackey K. Hancock

							          Justice

Do not publish.
In the Matter of: D.L.P. and H.L.P., Minor children.

No. COA16-468

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Howard Franklin EUBANKS

No. COA16-251

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

NO ERROR.
NO. 12-08-00394-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: §

BYRON K. ARNOLD, § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR §

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Byron K. Arnold is an inmate who alleges he has been served with two felony detainers, one

for aggravated perjury and the other for tampering with government records. He further alleges that

he filed a “Motion For Appointment of Counsel and Motion For Discharge of Delay” in which he

sought dismissal of those charges on speedy trial grounds. The trial court denied the motion. In this

original proceeding, Arnold challenges the trial court’s order denying the motion and seeks a writ

of mandamus requiring the trial court to vacate its order and conduct a hearing on the motion.

In a criminal case, mandamus relief is authorized only if the relator establishes that (1) he has

no other adequate legal remedy and (2) under the facts and the law, the act sought to be compelled

is purely ministerial. State ex rel. Hill v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim.

App.2001). However, mandamusrelief is not available to a defendant seeking dismissal of a charge

on speedy trial grounds. Smith v. Gohmert, 962 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

Moreover, a relator has the burden to provide a record establishing his right to mandamus relief. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j)(1)(A) (appendix to mandamus petition must contain a copy of any order

complained of, or any other document showing thematter complained of); TEX.R.APP.P. 52.7(a)(1)

(relator must file with the mandamus petition a copy of every document that is material to his claim

for relief); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.1992). Arnold’s mandamus petition is not
2

accompanied by a record, and therefore he has not established his right to mandamus relief relating

to his request for appointed counsel. 

Because Arnold has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief, his petition for writ

of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

 BRIAN HOYLE 

 Justice

Opinion delivered October 8, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A)/RULE 15D-14(A) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED I, Milton A. Alpern, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Applix, Inc.;2.
    Based on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    [Not applicable.]c)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):  a)
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; andb)
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting. /s/ Milton A. AlpernDate: May 16, 2005
    
    Milton A. AlpernChief Financial Officer and Treasurer
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

607 KA 15-00124
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALEX S. DUMBLETON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (GARY M. PHILLIPS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (SHIRLEY A. GORMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered November 13, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal contempt in the first degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [b] [v]), defendant contends that County Court erred in enhancing his sentence based on a violation of the plea agreement without first conducting a hearing pursuant to People v Outley (80 NY2d 702). Although defendant’s contention survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v Scott , 101 AD3d 1773, 1773, lv denied 21 NY3d 1019), defendant did not preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as “he failed to object to the alleged enhanced sentence and did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground” ( People v Epps , 109 AD3d 1104, 1105; see People v Mills , 90 AD3d 1518, 1518, lv denied 18 NY3d 960), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).

Entered: May 5, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
# C_2008022EN.01002202.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) lodged on 25 October 2007 — Association Nationale pour la Protection des Eaux et Rivières — TOS, Association OABA v Ministère de l'écologie, du développement et de l'aménagement durables — Intervener: Association France Nature Environnement

(Case C-473/07)

(2008/C 22/42)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'Etat

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Association Nationale pour la Protection des Eaux et Rivières — TOS, Association OABA

Applicants:

Defendant: Ministère de l'écologie, du développement et de l'aménagement durables

Defendant:

Questions referred

Must paragraph 6.6(a) of Annex I to Directive 96/61/EC (1), which applies to installations for the intensive rearing of poultry with more than 40 000 places, be interpreted:

1

| 1. | as including within its scope quails, partridges and pigeons; and, if so, |
| --- | --- |

1.

as including within its scope quails, partridges and pigeons; and, if so,

| 2. | as authorising a mechanism for calculating authorisation thresholds on the basis of a system of ‘animal-equivalents’, which gives weighting to the number of animals per place according to species so that account may be taken of the amount of nitrogen actually excreted by the various species? |
| --- | --- |

2.

as authorising a mechanism for calculating authorisation thresholds on the basis of a system of ‘animal-equivalents’, which gives weighting to the number of animals per place according to species so that account may be taken of the amount of nitrogen actually excreted by the various species?

---

(1)  Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26).

1

---