alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX10.01






Exhibit 10.01
AMENDMENT TO 
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED
EXECUTIVE RETENTION AND SEVERANCE PLAN II
This Amendment to the Granite Construction Incorporated Executive Retention and Severance Plan II (the “Plan”) is effective March 15, 2013.


1.    Section 15 of the Plan is amended in its entirety as follows:


“15.    Termination and Amendment of Plan.  This Plan and/or any Participation Agreement executed by a Participant may not be terminated with respect to such Participant without the written consent of the Participant and the approval of the Board or the Committee. Prior to March 14, 2013, this Plan and/or any Participation Agreement executed by a Participant may be modified, amended or superseded with respect to such Participant only by a supplemental written agreement between the Participant and the Company approved by the Board or the Committee.  Effective on and after March 14, 2013, the Committee, with respect to a Participant who is designated as a Participant on or after March 14, 2013, may modify, amend or suspend the Plan and/or any Participation Agreement executed by such a Participant, including but not limited to terminating the Participant's participation in the Plan; provided, however, that such  modification, amendment or suspension shall only be effective  beginning 12-months following the Committee's decision to modify, amend, or suspend the Participant's participation in the Plan.  Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan to the contrary, the Board or the Committee may, in its sole and absolute discretion and without the consent of any Participant, amend the Plan or any Participation Agreement, to take effect retroactively or otherwise, as it deems necessary or advisable for the purpose of conforming the Plan or such Participation Agreement to any present or future law relating to plans of this or similar nature (including, but not limited to, Section 409A of the Code), and to the administrative regulations and rulings promulgated thereunder.”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Secretary of the Company certifies that the foregoing Amendment to the Plan was duly adopted by the Board on March 15, 2013.




/s/ Richard Watts                               
Richard A. Watts
**Exhibit 32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**EXCHANGE
      ACT RULE 15d-14(b) AND**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Eternal Energy Corp.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      “Report”), I, Bradley M. Colby, President, Chief Executive Officer,
      Treasurer, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
      to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Exchange Act
      Rule 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:





i.
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





ii.
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
      document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
      that
      appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
      required by Section 906, has been provided to Eternal Energy Corp. and will
      be retained by Eternal Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/Bradley
                M. ColbyBradley
                M. ColbyPresident,
                Chief Executive Officer, Secretary,Treasurer
                and Chief Financial OfficerEternal
                Energy Corp.May
                15, 2007
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

SHEILA JANUSZ, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-1267

)

21ST CENTURY CENTENNIAL )

INSURANCE COMPANY. )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed December 14, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Ralph C. Stoddard, 

Judge.

K. Mitch Espat of Powell & Espat, Tampa, 

for Appellant.

Richard A. Sherman, Sr., of Law Offices of 

Richard A. Sharman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, 

and John D. McBride of Law Offices of 

Christina M. Sanabria, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 
- 2 -

SALARIO and ATKINSON, JJ., and CASE, JAMES R., ASSOCIATE SENIOR JUDGE, 

Concur.
Exhibit 10.3

 

REVOLVING CREDIT NOTE

 

	
$17,000,000
    	
March    11, 2013
    


 

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, WARWICK VALLEY TELEPHONE COMPANY, a New York corporation (the “Borrower”), promises to pay to the order of TRISTATE CAPITAL BANK (the “Lender”) the principal amount of SEVENTEEN MILLION DOLLARS ($17,000,000) or, if less, the aggregate amount of Loans (as defined in the Credit Agreement referred to below) made by the Lender to the Borrower pursuant to the Credit Agreement referred to below outstanding on the Expiration Date (as defined in such Credit Agreement) on the Expiration Date.

 

The Borrower also promises to pay interest on the unpaid principal amount hereof from the date hereof until paid at the rates and at the times determined in accordance with the provisions of the Credit Agreement.

 

All payments of principal and interest in respect of this Revolving Credit Note (this “Note”) shall be made in lawful money of the United States of America in same day funds at the office of the Lender described in the Credit Agreement.

 

This Note is the Note referred to in, and is entitled to the benefits of, the Credit Agreement, dated as of the date hereof (as amended, restated, replaced, modified or supplemented from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”) by and among the Borrower, the Lenders from time to time party thereto, and TRISTATE CAPITAL BANK, as Agent, which among other things provides for the acceleration of the maturity hereof upon the occurrence of certain events and for repayments in certain circumstances and upon certain terms and conditions.  Terms defined in the Credit Agreement have the same meanings herein.

 

This Note is entitled to the benefits of the Guaranty and is secured by the Security Documents.

 

The Borrower hereby expressly waives presentment, demand, notice, protest and all other demands and notices in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance, default or enforcement of this Note and the Credit Agreement, and an action for amounts due hereunder or thereunder shall immediately accrue.

 

THIS NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO ITS CHOICE OF LAW PRINCIPLES.

 

THE BORROWER HEREBY AGREES TO WAIVE ITS RIGHTS TO A JURY TRIAL OF ANY CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON OR ARISING OUT OF THIS NOTE OR ANY DEALINGS BETWEEN THE BORROWER AND THE LENDER RELATING TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS NOTE OR THE LENDER/BORROWER RELATIONSHIP THAT IS BEING ESTABLISHED.

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower has caused this Revolving Credit Note to be executed and delivered by its duly authorized officer, as of the date and the place first above written.

 

 

	
 
    	
WARWICK VALLEY TELEPHONE COMPANY
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Brian H. Callahan
    
	
 
    	
Brian H. Callahan
    
	
 
    	
Chief   Financial Officer
    


 

(Signature Page to Revolving Credit Note)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
Financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1997 have not been
prepared in as much as the reporting entities have not commenced operations
as of that date.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                            0
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  0
<PP&E>                                            0
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             0
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                        0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      0
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  0
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   0
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                      0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0




</TABLE>
# C_2009044EN.01001602.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof) — Wienstrom GmbH v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit

(Case C-384/07) (1)

1

(State aid - Article 88(3) EC - Aid declared compatible with the common market - Dispute between the aid recipient and the national authorities concerning the amount of aid unlawfully put into effect - Role of the national court)

(2009/C 44/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wienstrom GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 88(3) EC — State aid scheme put into effect without prior notification to the Commission, the final amended version of which, however, following its notification, was declared compatible with the common market, without any express negative decision having been taken with regard to the previous non-notified version — Obligations of national courts deriving from the Commission's decision

Operative part of the judgment

The prohibition on putting State aid into effect laid down in the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC does not require a national court, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, to dismiss an action brought by a State aid recipient concerning the amount of that State aid allegedly due in respect of a period predating a decision of the Commission of the European Communities finding that aid to be compatible with the common market.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CORNUS CORPORATION, an Oregon

corporation,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

GEAC ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS,

INC., a Georgia corporation; AMSI, a

GEAC Computer Inc. Company;

INFOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS

(MICHIGAN) INC., a Georgia

corporation,

 Defendants - Appellants.

No. 08-35901

D.C. No. 1:08-cv-03030-CL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 5, 2009

Portland, Oregon

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

FILED

DEC 15 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
page 2

Even if plaintiff waived its right to seek remand in the prior, virtually

identical suit, that waiver did not extend to this case. The Cornus Partner

Agreement provides: “No delay or failure in exercising any right hereunder . . .

shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of such right” and “[t]his Agreement and

any matters relating thereto shall be governed, construed and interpreted in

accordance with the laws of Oregon.” Non-waiver provisions are enforceable

under Oregon law, at least so long as a party is alleged to have waived a right by a

failure to act rather than by an affirmative act. See Boise Joint Venture v. Moore,

806 P.2d 707, 709 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). The district court therefore did not err

when it held that plaintiff had not waived its right to seek remand in this case. 

Neither does claim preclusion prevent plaintiff from seeking to enforce the

forum-selection clause in this suit. Plaintiff could have, but did not, seek to

remand the prior action that has been dismissed for failure to prosecute. But only

“grounds for, or defenses to, recovery that were previously available to the parties”

are merged into a prior judgment. Fischel v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of

U.S., 307 F.3d 997, 1005 n.5 (9th Cir. 2002). A forum-selection clause is not a

ground for or defense to recovery; it addresses only the proper forum in which to

litigate those grounds and defenses. 
page 3

There is a strong presumption in favor of enforcing the parties’ bargainedfor choice of forum. The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 15 (1972). 

Even were we to find defendants’ equitable arguments against remand relevant,

they cannot overcome this presumption. 

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph BISCHONE.

No. 2003-KK-2538.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 17, 2003.

In re Bischone, Joseph; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 03-503; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-K-909.

Denied.
**EXHIBIT 24**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned officers and/ordirectors of Valley Financial Corporation, a Virginia corporation (“Valley”), does hereby constitute and appoint Ellis L. Gutshall and Kimberly B. Snyder, and each of them (with full power to each of them to act alone), his true and lawfulAttorneys in Fact and Agents for him and on his behalf and in his name, place and stead in any and all capacities and particularly as an officer and/or director of Valley, to sign, execute and affix his seal thereto and file any of the documentsreferred to below: 

Annual Report for the calendar year ended December 31, 2006 on Form 10-K, and any amendments thereto, together withall exhibits and any and all documents required to be filed with respect thereto, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and all other appropriate regulatory authorities; 

granting unto said Attorneys and each of them full power and authority to do and perform every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises in order to effectuate the same as fully, toall intents and purposes, as he himself might or could do if personally present, hereby ratifying and affirming all that said Attorneys in Fact and Agents or each of them may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. 

/s/ Anna L. Lawson

/s/ George W. Logan

/s/ Barbara B. Lemon

/s/ Michael E. Warner

/s/ Abney S. Boxley, III

/s/ John W. Starr

/s/ Mason Haynesworth

/s/ Geoffrey Ottaway

/s/ A. Wayne Lewis

/s/ Ellis L. Gutshall

/s/ William D. Elliot

/s/ James S. Frantz, Jr.

/s/ Eddie F. Hearp

/s/ Samuel L. Lionberger, Jr.

/s/ Ward W. Stevens

 

118
# Official Journal C 289/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.289.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 289 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 564 October 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.289.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 289

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 564 October 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | European Commission |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| 2013/C 289/01 | Communication from the Commission — Guidance on the implementation of Decision No 377/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council derogating temporarily from Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

European Commission

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

2013/C 289/01

Communication from the Commission — Guidance on the implementation of Decision No 377/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council derogating temporarily from Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 289/02 | Euro exchange rates | 8 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2013/C 289/03 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 9 |
| 2013/C 289/04 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 9 |
| 2013/C 289/05 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 10 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 289/02

Euro exchange rates

8

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2013/C 289/03

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

9

2013/C 289/04

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

9

2013/C 289/05

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

10

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 289/06 | Notice of the impending expiry of certain countervailing measures | 11 |
| 2013/C 289/07 | Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures | 12 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

2013/C 289/06

Notice of the impending expiry of certain countervailing measures

11

2013/C 289/07

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

12

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### In the Interest of A.W., C.W., O.W., Plaintiff, JUVENILE OFFICER, Respondent, v. R.D.W. (Father), Appellant, T.N. (Mother), Defendant.

Nos. WD 62283-WD 62285.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 2, 2003.

*682Greta Erhardt, Kansas City, MO, for Guardian.

Sharlie Pender, Independence, MO, for appellant.

Teresa L. Anderson, Kansas City, MO, for defendant.

Melissa Stanosheck, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.

Before SMART, P.J., ULRICH and HARDWICK, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from a circuit court judgment finding jurisdiction over three minor children and placing them in protective custody pursuant to Section 211.031.1, R.S.Mo.2000. The children’s father, R.D.W., appeals on jurisdictional grounds and disputes the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of parental neglect. Upon review of the record, we find no merit in the claims of error. The parties have been provided with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision, because a published opinion would be of no precedential value.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2459

WILLIAM SPENCER BACH; BARBARA RUTH BACH,

Petitioners - Appellants,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 95-330)

Submitted: April 27, 1999 Decided: May 19, 1999

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Spencer Bach, Barbara Ruth Bach, Appellants Pro Se. Loretta

C. Argrett, Ellen Page DelSole, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

William and Barbara Bach appeal from the tax court’s order

determining a deficiency and penalties with respect to their 1987

federal income tax liability. Our review of the record and the tax

court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. See Bach v. Commissioner,

Tax Ct. No. 95-330 (U.S. Tax Ct. July 29, 1998). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

COURTNEY D. VAUGHN,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 30016

D.C. No. 2:14

- cr

- 00021

- RMP

- 19

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2 , 2020 * *

Before: WALLACE

, CLIFTON , and BRESS , Circuit Judges

.

Courtney D. Vaughn appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 24

- month sentence imposed following his third revocation of

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Vaughn contends that the above

- Guidelines sentence is substantively

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 30016

unreasonable because the district court placed too much emphasis on his poor

history on supervised release instead of focusing on his mitigatin g arguments

regarding his effort s to become a better father and his mental health issues . The

district court did not abuse its discretion

. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38,

51 (2007). The 24

- month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18

U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including

Vaughn’s repeated breaches of the district court’s trust and his refusal to avail

himself of opportunities presented by the court

. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 5 1 ; United

States v. Simtob , 485 F.3d 1058, 1 062 (9th Cir. 2007) (primary purpose of

revocation sentence is to sanction defendant’s breach of the court’s trust)

.

AFFIRMED.