alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.14


                    SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE BY AND BETWEEN
                        JORANDCOR, INC. ("LANDLORD") AND
                 CODA MUSIC TECHNOLOGY, INC. F/N/A VIVACE, INC.,
                     SUCCESSOR TO CODA COMPANY, ("TENANT"),
                             DATED OCTOBER 23, 1992



         THIS  SECOND  AMENDMENT  TO  LEASE  is made as of the 30th day of June,
1997.

         Landlord and Tenant are parties to that certain Lease  Agreement  dated
October  23,  1992,  as amended by that First  Amendment  To Lease dated May 26,
1993, for certain property located in the City of Eden Prairie ("Lease").

         WHEREAS,  Tenant  has  exercised  its  option to renew the Lease as set
forth in paragraph 24 of the Lease ("Option"),  extending the terms of the Lease
for a three (3) year period commencing December 1, 1997;

         WHEREAS,  the parties wish to set forth the base rent to be paid by the
Tenant to the  Landlord  from  December 1, 1997 to  November  30,  2000,  and to
reaffirm all other terms and conditions of the Lease:

         NOW,  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of the premises and the agreements
herein contained, the Lease is hereby amended as follows:

          1. The Termination Date as defined in the Lease shall be November 30,
2000.

          2. The monthly base rent to be paid by Tenant to Landlord  pursuant to
the terms of the Lease from  December 1, 1997 to November 30, 2000 shall be paid
as follows:

          a.   From December 1, 1997 to November 30, 1998, $6,571.12 per month;

          b.   From December 1, 1998 to November 30, 1999, $6,702.75 per month;

          c.   From December 1, 1999 to November 30, 2000, $6,834.38 per month.

          d.   November 2000 rent shall be paid as follows:

                   (i)      Tenant shall pay $1,953.38; and

                   (ii)     The Security Deposit of $4,881.00 shall be applied
                            to the balance.

                  Landlord's  agreement  to apply the  Security  Deposit  to the
                  November 2000 rent or the actual application  thereof does not
                  constitute a waiver of any of Tenant's  obligations  under the
                  lease, nor is Tenant relieved of any obligations thereunder.


<PAGE>


          3. The rent for November 1997 shall be $5,821.87, and Landlord will 
retain $4,881.00 as the security deposit required under the lease.

          4. Except as expressly  modified by this  Amendment to the Lease,  all
the other terms and conditions of the Lease, and any prior  amendments  thereto,
are hereby ratified and confirmed by the parties.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned  have placed their hands the date
and year first above written.



LANDLORD:                                   TENANT:

JORANDCOR, INC.                             CODA MUSIC TECHNOLOGY, INC.



By:  /s/ Richard A. Broms                   By: /s/ Joan K. Berg

     Its: President                             Its:  Chief Financial Officer
# C_2023329EN.01004002.xml

| 18.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/40

---

Action brought on 28 July 2023 — Sparkasse KölnBonn v SRB

(Case T-475/23)

(2023/C 329/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sparkasse KölnBonn (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: F. Kruis and N. Bartmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-410/23, BAWAG PSK v SRB.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David Gao, Chief Executive Officer of BMP SUNSTONE Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that, based on my knowledge:

(1) The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the
Form 10-Q) 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|/s/ DAVID GAO                                 
|David Gao Chief Executive
Officer May 10, 2010
# C_2009193EN.01002002.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/20

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2009 — CPEM v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-444/07) (1)

1

(ESF - Cancellation of financial assistance - OLAF report)

2009/C 193/30

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Centre de promotion de l'emploi par la micro-entreprise (CPEM) (Marseilles, France) (represented by: C. Bonnefoi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4645 of 4 October 2007, cancelling the assistance granted by the European Social Fund (ESF) by Decision C(1999) 2645 of 17 August 1999, and also application for damages

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders the Centre de promotion de l'emploi par la micro-entreprise (CPEM) to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Centre de promotion de l'emploi par la micro-entreprise (CPEM) to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4148 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4148

 To phase out cosmetic animal testing and the sale of cosmetics tested 
                              on animals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 2014

  Mr. Moran introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To phase out cosmetic animal testing and the sale of cosmetics tested 
                              on animals.

    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 ``Humane Cosmetics Act''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

    The purpose of this Act is to phase out cosmetic animal testing and 
the sale of cosmetics tested on animals.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Cosmetic.--The term ``cosmetic'' has the meaning given 
        to such term in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
        Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
            (2) Cosmetic animal testing.--The term ``cosmetic animal 
        testing'' means the application or exposure of any cosmetic to 
        the skin, eyes, or other body part of a live non-human 
        vertebrate for purposes of evaluating the safety or efficacy of 
        a cosmetic.

SEC. 4. PROHIBITIONS.

    (a) Prohibited Testing.--It shall be unlawful for any entity, 
whether private or governmental, to conduct or contract for cosmetic 
animal testing that occurs in the United States and is in or affecting 
interstate commerce.
    (b) Prohibited Sale or Transport.--It shall be unlawful to sell, 
offer for sale, or transport in interstate commerce any cosmetic if the 
final product or any component thereof was developed or manufactured 
using cosmetic animal testing conducted or contracted for after the 
effective date specified in section 6(a).

SEC. 5. CIVIL PENALTIES.

    (a) In General.--In addition to any other penalties applicable 
under law, whoever violates any provision of this Act shall be assessed 
a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each such violation.
    (b) Multiple Violations.--Each violation of this Act with respect 
to a separate animal, and each day that a violation of this Act 
continues, constitutes a separate offense.

SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATES.

    (a) Prohibition on Cosmetic Animal Testing.--The prohibition in 
section 4(a) takes effect on the date that is 1 year after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
    (b) Prohibition on Sale.--The prohibition in section 4(b) takes 
effect on the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
STA RBUCKS CORPORATION D/B/A STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY , App ellant ,

v. Case No. 5D 23

- 157 LT Case No. 2020

- CA

- 109
SHERRY GOLD, CHRISTINE MAZZANTI WARD AND ISLAND WAL K STATION, LLC, A FOR PROFIT C ORPORATION ,

Appellee s. ________________________________/
Decisio n filed March 2 8, 2 023 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County , Eric C. R oberson , J udge. Meagan L

. Lo gan, of Douglas & D ouglas, Lake C ity, f

or A ppellant. Benjamin E

. R ichard , Curry Gary Pajcic, E lizabeth T

. Cardenas, and Meredith A. Ross , of P ajcic & P ajcic, P .A. , Jac ksonville, for Appellee, Sherry Gold.
No A ppearance for R emaining A ppellees

. PER CURIAM.
AFF IRMED.

MAKA R , EDWARDS and HARRIS , JJ., concur.
STATE of North Carolina v. Mark Baron WILSON, Defendant.

No. COA16-1043

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 16, 2017

NO ERROR IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
State of North Carolina v. Daniel Scott Best

No. COA16-27

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 20, 2016

NO ERROR.
Laurel Frances ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. Ben Logan ANDERSON, Defendant.

No. COA16-469

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 6, 2017

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56477-56478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19180]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 
552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract 
proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets 
or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the contract 
proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel, Clinical Trial Data Collection Using Handheld Technology.
    Date: October 12, 2005.

[[Page 56478]]

    Time: 12 p.m. to 2 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, 
Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: C. Michael Kerwin, PhD, MPH, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Special Review and Logistics Branch, Division of 
Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, National 
Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8057, MSC 8329, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-8329, Bethesda, MD 20892-8329, 301-496-7421, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#adc6c8dfdac4c3c0edc0ccc4c183c3c4c583cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d66687f7a6463604d606c646123636465236a627b">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 16, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-19180 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
State v. Samson Jamarco Coleman

404P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney Geneal, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Samson Jamarco Coleman, for Coleman, Samson Jamarco

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 31st of October 2016 by Petitioner for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
# CE2004078EN.01079501.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/795 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/795

---

(2004/C 78 E/0845)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3238/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   New arrangements regarding maritime cabotage in Greece

Subject:

According to the Greek press, with a view to the new maritime cabotage arrangements which enter into force on 1 January 2004 in Greece, the Commission and the Greek Ministry for the Merchant Maritime have decided to set up a joint committee to examine issues relating to the institutional framework in Greece and the transition to the new provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 (1) for ending preferential arrangements in the coastal navigation sector. The Association of Coastal Shipowners wishes to form part of the committee with a view to supporting full liberalisation in this sector. The press reports go on to say that the issues under discussion include contracts for crew members of Greek coastal vessels, the knowledge of Greek required of Community seamen wishing to work in Greece and age limits for passenger and car ferries applicable in Greece.

1

| 1. | In the Commission's opinion, in which areas will these arrangements be incompatible with Community law, specifically Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 regarding preferential arrangements in the coastal navigation sector? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the Commission's opinion, in which areas will these arrangements be incompatible with Community law, specifically Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 regarding preferential arrangements in the coastal navigation sector?

| 2. | What measures must be taken by the Greek authorities by 1 January 2004 to avoid problems regarding the implementation of Community law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What measures must be taken by the Greek authorities by 1 January 2004 to avoid problems regarding the implementation of Community law?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

(8 December 2003)

The Commission has been telling the Greek authorities for a long time that the law in force needs to be amended in order to be compatible with Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 (2), notably regarding the scope of public service, the rules on manning and the age requirement for vessels. The Regulation will be fully applicable from 1 January 2004.

2

The Commission never planned to set up a joint committee with the Greek authorities. It will take all the necessary measures, including infringement proceedings if necessary, to ensure that the Regulation is observed.

---

(1)  OJ L 364, 12.12.1992, p. 7.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States, OJ L 364, 12.12.1992.

2

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19254]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 
1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 
1978, Public Law 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 
This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadena G. Kennedy, Permit Office, 
Office of Polar Programs, Rm.755, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 27, 2005, the National Science 
Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of permit 
applications received. A permit was issued on September 20, 2005 to: 
Sarah Andrews, Permit No. 2006-018.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-19254 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.25

                                    ADDENDUM NO. 1

         THIS ADDENDUM (hereinafter "Addendum No. 1") is made and entered into
between JAVA CENTRALE, INC., a California corporation (hereinafter "Employer")
and THOMAS A. CRAIG (hereinafter "Employee").

         WHEREAS Employee is employed by Employer in the position of Vice-
President Marketing and Real Estate; and

         WHEREAS Employer and Employee executed an Employment Agreement as of
the 1st day of February, 1994 (the "Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS the parties desire to amend the terms of the Agreement:

1.       The term of the Agreement as set out in Article 2 is hereby extended
to January 31, 1999.

2.       The base salary of $80,000 shall remain the same as described in
Article 1(a) of the Agreement, subject to the adjustment agreed in May of 1996,
reducing the base salary to $73,274.

3.       The Employee further agrees that he will, upon the written request of
the Board, sign an Addendum to the Agreement which provides for changes to the
term and compensation, proportional to any such changes agreed to from time to
time by Messrs. R. Shannon, G. Nelson and S. Orlando in their respective
employment agreements with the Employer.

4.       In all other respects the Agreement is hereby confirmed without
amendment.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement at
Sacramento, California as of the 1st day of January, 1997.


                                       JAVA CENTRALE, INC.

                                       Per: /s/ Richard D. Shannon
                                           -------------------------------
                                             Richard D. Shannon, Chairman


                                       /s/ Thomas A. Craig
                                       -----------------------------------
                                       THOMAS A. CRAIG
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2426

TAE IL BONG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA; RICHARD H. POTT,

Honorable Judge of the Supreme Court of Virginia; W. S. FLAHERTY, Captain, Department of

the State Police; GOVERNOR’S MANSION OF

VIRGINIA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CA-99-37-2-MC)

Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 27, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tae Il Bong, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Tae Bong seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

Bong’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on the grounds that

(1) the court had no jurisdiction over the case and (2) Bong had

sufficient funds to pay the filing fee. Bong has applied to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. We dismiss the appeal for lack

of jurisdiction because Bong’s notice of appeal was not timely

filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district

court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(4), (b)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,

434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361

U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

After the district court denied Bong’s application to proceed

in forma pauperis, Bong filed a motion for reconsideration that was

denied on August 27, 1999. Bong’s notice of appeal was filed on

October 19, 1999. Because Bong failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,

we dismiss the appeal. We deny leave for Bong to proceed on appeal

in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
3

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
STATE of North Carolina v. Keith Paul OXNER

No. COA16-859

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 7, 2017

NO ERROR.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 28, 2017

No. 04-17-00436-CR & 04-17-00437-CR

David Stuart BISHOP,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR3325 & 2015CR3326

Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Court reporter Amy L. Hinds’s motion for extension of time to file the record is granted. 

We order the record due August 21, 2017.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of July, 2017.

___________________________________

Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk