alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
      10.25





**AMENDMENT
      TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**








**AMENDMENT
      NO. 2** dated as
      of March 10, 2006 between **BERRY
      PLASTICS CORPORATION,** a
      Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), and **G. ADAM UNFRIED** (the
      "Employee").







Reference
      is made to the Employment Agreement dated as of November 22, 1999 (the
      "Employment Agreement"), between the Corporation and the Employee, as amended
      on
      November 23, 2004. The Corporation and the Employee desire to amend certain
      terms of the Employment Agreement. All capitalized terms used herein and not
      otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the
      Employment Agreement.




Accordingly,
      in consideration of the mutual covenants and premises contained herein and
      other
      good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
      acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:




1.  Termination
      of Employment .
      Section
      8(b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by adding a new paragraph
      (iii) which reads in its entirety as follows:




"(iii)
      the applicable bonus provided for in Section 5(b) computed on a pro-rata basis
      to the Termination Date, payable at the same time and in the same manner only
      as, if and when bonuses are paid to other employees of the Corporation of
      comparable seniority."




2.  Effect
      of Amendment **.** Except
      as expressly amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full
      force
      and effect and unchanged.




3.  Counterparts **.** This
      Amendment No. 2 may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which
      shall
      be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the
      same instrument.




**IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF** ,
      the
      parties have hereunto set their hands as of the date first written
      above.




**BERRY
      PLASTICS CORPORATION**








By:    /s/ Ira G. Boots


Ira
      G.
      Boots


President
      and Chief Executive Officer








/s/
      G. Adam Unfried


G.
      Adam
      Unfried
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN 

PARTY; CHRISTOPHER VANCE;

BERTABELLE HUBKA; STEVE

NEIGHBORS; BRENT BOGER; MARCY

COLLINS; MICHAEL YOUNG,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

and

WASHINGTON STATE DEMOCRATIC

Nos. 05-35774 CENTRAL COMMITTEE; PAUL

05-35780 BERENDT; LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF

WASHINGTON STATE; RUTH  D.C. No.

BENNETT; J.S. MILLS, CV-05-00927-TSZ

Plaintiffs-Intervenors- ORDER

Appellees,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON; ROB

MCKENNA, Attorney General; SAM

REED, Secretary of State;

WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE,

Defendants-IntervenorsAppellants. 

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

Filed October 2, 2008

Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, Pamela Ann Rymer and

Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges.

13979
ORDER

This case was remanded to us from the United States

Supreme Court. See Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State

Republican Party, 128 S. Ct. 1184 (2008). In light of the

Supreme Court’s decision, we VACATE our opinion in

Washington State Republican Party v. Washington, 460 F.3d

1108 (9th Cir. 2006), VACATE our August 22, 2006 and

October 3, 2006 orders granting attorney’s fees and costs and

REMAND to the district court with the following instructions.

The district court should DISMISS all facial associational

rights claims challenging Initiative 872. See Wash. State

Grange, 128 S. Ct. at 1187. 

The district court should DISMISS all equal protection

claims. The allegedly discriminatory statutes were repealed by

Initiative 872. See Wash. State Grange, 128 S. Ct. at 1192-93.

The district court should DISMISS as waived all claims

that Initiative 872 imposes illegal qualifications for federal

office, sets illegal timing of federal elections or imposes discriminatory campaign finance rules because these claims were

neither pled by the parties nor addressed in summary judgment by the district court. 

The district court may allow the parties to further develop

the record with respect to the claims that Initiative 872 unconstitutionally constrains access to the ballot and appropriates

the political parties’ trademarks, to the extent these claims

have not been waived or disposed of by the Supreme Court.

The district court may make appropriate findings concerning the parties’ settlement of fees and should determine

whether restitution or further fee awards are appropriate in

response to appellee Washington State’s motion to vacate

award of attorney’s fees and costs, for judgment awarding restitution of fees and costs and for costs. 

13980 WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN v. WASHINGTON
Remanded for proceedings according to the above instructions.

WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN v. WASHINGTON 13981
PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.
NIES v. TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE

409PA15-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 28, 2016

J. David Breemer, Attorney at Law, Keith P. Anthony, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Nies, Gregory P., et al.

Brian E. Edes, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Norwood P. Blanchard, III, Attorney at *9Law, J. Allen Jernigan, Attorney at Law, for Town of Emerald Isle.

Elliot Engstrom, Attorney at Law, for Civitas Institute Center for Law and Freedom.

Robert H. Thomas, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, Jason T. Campbell, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Owners' Counsel of America, et al.

James Patrick Longest, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Surfrider Foundation.

Geoffrey R. Gisler, Attorney at Law, Derb S. Carter, Jr., Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Southern Environmental Law Center.

Mary Louise Lucasse, Special Deputy Attorney General, for N.C. Coastal Resources Commission.

Todd S. Roessler, Attorney at Law, Phillip A. Harris, Jr., Attorney at Law, Joseph S. Dowdy, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Joseph J. Kalo, Attorney at Law, Amy Y. Bason, General Counsel, Walter Derrickson Taylor, Attorney at Law, Neil B. Whitford, Attorney at Law, Morehead City, Garris Neil Yarborough, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Charles S. Lanier, Attorney at Law, Jacksonville, Carl W. Thurman, III, Attorney at Law, Stephen D. Coggins, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Wanda M. Copley, County Attorney, John C. Wessell, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte Noel Fox, Attorney at Law, A. A. Canoutas, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Robert V. Shaver, Jr., Attorney at Law, Charles S. Baldwin, IV, Attorney at Law, Justin K. Humphries, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Michael R. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, Southport, G. Grady Richardson, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Graham Kenan Professor of Law Emeritus Joseph Kalo, et al.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Solicitor General, Marc Bernstein, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina Ex Rel. Attorney General Roy Cooper.

J. Mitchell Armbruster, Attorney at Law, B. Davis Horne, Jr., Attorney at Law, Eva G. Frongello, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. Travel and Tourism Coalition, et al.

Sam Hayes, Attorney at Law, David B. Efird, Deputy General Counsel, Beth A. Onyenwoke, Attorney at Law, Kevin V. Howell, Attorney at Law, for Department of Environmental Quality, et al.

Benjamin Marshall Gallop, Attorney at Law, John D. Leidy, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth City, Robert B. Hobbs, Jr., Attorney at Law, Nags Head, Donald I. McRee, Jr., Currituck County Attorney, Ronald G. Baker, Attorney at Law, Casey C. Varnell, Attorney at Law, For County of Dare, et al.

***Amended***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of July 2016 by Surfrider Foundation for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of July 2016."

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).
# C_2008064EN.01001401.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/14

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova (Italy)) — Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova v Euricom SpA

(Case C-505/06) (1)

1

(First paragraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Community Customs Code - Inward processing - Association Agreement - Prior export of rice to a non-member country bound by a preferential customs agreement - Article 216 of the Customs Code)

(2008/C 64/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova (Italy)

Parties

Applicant: Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova

Applicant:

Defendant: Euricom SpA

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova Interpretation of Article 114, Article 115(1) and (3) and Article 216 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Rice exported under inward processing arrangements to a third country with which there is an agreement for preferential customs treatment

Operative part of the order

Article 216 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 is applicable to the inward processing operations referred to in Article 115(1)(b) of that regulation in which compensating products have been exported from the Community before importation of the import goods.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1



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 of Sterling Gold Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Robert M. Baker, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 7th day of September, 2005.



| | /s/ Robert M. Baker                                
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Robert M. Baker                                    
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



















---
SED HOLDINGS, LLC v. 3 STAR PROPERTIES, LLC, James Johnson, TMPS LLC, Mark Hyland, and Home Servicing, LLC

No. 211PA16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

R. Hayes Hofler, III, Attorney at Law, Durham, For 3 Star Properties, LLC, et al.

Douglas W. Hanna, Attorney at Law, Mark R. Sigmon, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For SED Holdings, LLC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 27th of May 2016 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).

Defendants shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.
Exhibit 10.18(d)



FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT (this
Amendment) is made as of this 30th day of April, 2003 to that certain EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of December 21, 1999 (as heretofore amended, the Employment Agreement), by and between R. NEAL BLACK (Employee)
and JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC. (Employer).



FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, Employer and Employee, being the sole parties to the Employment Agreement, hereby amend the Employment Agreement as follows:



1. Subject to earlier termination otherwise set
forth in the Employment Agreement, the last day of the Employment Period shall be January 31, 2005.



2. Effective March 3, 2003, Employees Base Salary shall be $290,000.



Except as specifically amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect
according to its terms. To the extent of any conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the terms of the remainder of the Employment Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall control and prevail. Capitalized terms used but not defined
herein shall have those respective meanings attributed to them in the Employment Agreement. This Amendment shall hereafter be deemed a part of the Employment Agreement for all purposes.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.



|JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC. |  |                         |  | 
|---------------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | 
|                            
|By:                          |  | /s/ ROBERT N.
WILDRICK  |  | 
|                             |  | Robert N. Wildrick      |  | 
|                             |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 12 November 2008 – Weiler v OHIM – IQNet Association – The International
Certification Network (Q2WEB)**

**(Case T-242/07)**

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark Q2WEB – Earlier Community word mark QWEB and earlier Community figurative mark QWEB Certified Site – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds of invalidity (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 8(1)(b) and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 25, 33, 41-42, 44)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2007 (Case R 893/2005-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between CISQ Federazione Certificazione Italiana Sistemi di Qualità Aziendali, then IQNet Association – The International Certification Network, and Mr D. Weiler. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought: | Word mark Q2WEB for goods in Classes 9, 35, 38 and 42 – mark No 2418150 |
| Proprietor of the Community trade mark | Dieter Weiler |
| Party applying for cancellation: | CISQ Federazione Certificazione Italiana Sistemi di Qualità Aziendali |
| Trade marks of the party applying for cancellation: | Word mark QWEB for goods and services in Class 42 (Community mark No 1772078), figurative mark QWEB for services in Classes 35, 38 and 42 (Community mark No 1871201) and word mark QWEBMARK for services in Classes 35, 38 and 42 (Community mark No 1771963) |
| Decision of the Cancellation Division: | Trade mark cancelled |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Mr Dieter Weiler to pay the costs. |
# CE2004084EN.01004802.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/48

---

(2004/C 84 E/0054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3060/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Cost of Turkey joining the EU

Subject:

The Osteuropa-Institut, the Munich-based Institute for East European Studies, estimates that Turkey's membership of the European Union would cost EUR 5,2 billion a year at the start of EU membership. The amount would increase to EUR 14 billion a year by the time Turkey was fully integrated into the Union.

Has the Commission seen the preliminary results of this study?

Has the Commission made its own calculations of the cost of Turkey joining the EU? If so, what were its findings? How do the costs of Turkey's membership compare with those for the ten new accession States?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

(7 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of the study to which the Honourable Member refers but has not seen the detailed results. Such estimates depend on a large number of hypotheses, such as the timing of possible accession, rates of economic development and the outcome of accession negotiations. The Commission considers that it is not possible to define in detail a number of hypotheses which would be necessary for any such calculation.

---
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan 

ORDER 

Linda K Heiden v Gerald L Heiden 

Docket No. 318245 

LC No. 12-0011 49-00 

Douglas B. hapiro 

Presiding Judge 

Elizabeth L. Gleicher 

Amy Ronayne Krause 

Judges 

The Court orders that the february I 0, 2015 opinion 1s hereby VACA TED, and 

a new opinion is attached. 

A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr., Chief Clerk. on 

FEB 2 6 2015 

Dare
No. 90-621 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1991

JOHN W. ROBIDOU, Plaintiff and Appellant,-vsJOE HEIMER, Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, In and for the County of Park, The Honorable Byron L. Robb, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Larry Jent; Williams, Jent & Dockins, Bozeman, Montana. For Respondent: Tara DePuy; DePuy Law Firm, Livingston,Montana. 

# I

Filed: 

### AUG

### 20891

CLERK OPSUPREMECOUR-~ ":7ATE OFMONTANA Submitted on briefs: June 28, 1991 August 20, 1991Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. John W. Robidou appeals the order of the District Court for theSixthJudicial District,ParkCounty,confirminganarbitration award and denying Robidoutsmotion to vacate. The issue is whether the District Court erred in confirming an arbitration award. Joe Heimer sold Robidou his outfitting and guiding business. The parties signed a written contract for the sale. When a dispute arose between Heimer and Robidou concerning conveyance of certain aspects of the business, by mutual action the parties submitted to arbitration. Heimer filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award with the District Court. In confirming the arbitration award the District Court stated: Robidou not onlyparticipated in arbitrationproceedings to resolve [the dispute], but instigated such action. Neitherparty had anattorney at theoriginal arbitration hearing, but both thereafter obtained one, another arbitration session was scheduled at the request of Robidouts attorneytohear testimonyof [the attorneywho prepared the written contract] but Robidoutslawyer did not follow through, sothearbitrator affirmed theaward. Robidou later complained the entire arbitration process was improper and the arbitrator not impartial, even though all [the arbitrator] in essence ordered was that the parties should fulfill their obligations under the contract. On appeal, Robidou maintains that the arbitration agreement
was invalid, that the arbitrator exceeded his powers and that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to make an award. As pointed out by the District Court, Robidou agreed to arbitration; agreed to the specific arbitrator; and participated in thearbitration without raisingany objection. Robidou objectedto the arbitration only after the award was made. We affirm the District Court's conclusion that it found no basis for invalidating the award. Pursuant to Section I,Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to the West Publishing Company.

We Concur:
WORLEY, et al. v. MOORE, et al.

310A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 23, 2016

Adam H. Charnes, Attorney at Law, John M. Moye, Attorney at Law, for Moore, Roy J., et al.

R. Daniel Boyce, Attorney at Law, Thomas J. Ludlam, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, David S. Pokela, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Worley, Dennis, et al.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 22nd of November 2016 by Defendants:

*269"Motion Allowed as to a 5 day extension only. By order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of November 2016."

Defendants shall have up to and including the 12th day of December 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS STATEMENT CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31,
1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000920231
<NAME> TRANSACTION NETWORK SERVICES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,169
<SECURITIES>                                    29,834
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,948
<ALLOWANCES>                                       598
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,402
<PP&E>                                          24,160
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,074
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,551
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           123
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,068
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,551
<SALES>                                         52,291
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,291
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,771
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,736
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,454
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,640
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,784
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,814
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46
        

</TABLE>