alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT


This Amendment No. 1 to Purchase Agreement (this “Amendment”)
dated this 1st day of March, 2022, by and among SunHydrogen, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) and GHS Investments,
LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (the “Investor”).


WHEREAS, the Company and the Investor are party
to a purchase agreement, dated February 4, 2021 (the “Purchase Agreement”);


WHEREAS, the Company and the Investor desire
to amend the Purchase Agreement as more particularly set forth below;


WHEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree as follows:


1.       The definition of the
“Maturity Date” under the Purchase Agreement is hereby amended to be March 31, 2022.


2.       Except as modified herein,
the terms of the Purchase Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


3.       This Amendment may be
executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and shall be binding upon all
parties, their successors and assigns, and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same Amendment. A signature delivered
by facsimile or email shall constitute an original.


[Signature Page Follows]






     


     


    




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


 


 


SUNHYDROGEN, INC.


 


By: /s/ Timothy Young


Name: Timothy Young


Title: Chief Executive Officer


 


 


GHS INVESTMENTS, LLC


 


 


By: /s/ Sarfraz Hajee


Name: Sarfraz Hajee


Title: Member
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PERIODIC REPORT





Each of
the undersigned, in his capacity as an officer of Global Gold Corporation (the
"Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that:





(1) the
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





(2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:
      February 19, 2010
            /s/
      Van Z. Krikorian
              Van
      Z. Krikorian
              Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer








Date:
      February 19, 2010
            /s/
      Jan E. Dulman
              Jan
      E. Dulman
              Chief
      Financial Officer








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# L_2007019EN.01000701.xml

| 26.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 19/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/7

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 60/2007

of 25 January 2007

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 958/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 of 28 June 2006 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2006/2007 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 of 28 June 2006 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2006/2007 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 25 January 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 25 January 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 25 January 2007, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 shall be 28,548 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 26 January 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 January 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1585/2006 (OJ L 294, 25.10.2006, p. 19).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 175, 29.6.2006, p. 49.

2

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-23-2000
<CASH>                                              35
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      818
<ALLOWANCES>                                        23
<INVENTORY>                                        721
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,647
<PP&E>                                           2,606
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,055
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,395
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,667
<BONDS>                                            663
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,883
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,395
<SALES>                                         12,202
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,202
<CGS>                                           11,414
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,414
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   446
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  64
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    277
<INCOME-TAX>                                       105
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                172
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (15)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       157
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.60<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.58<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Earnings before extraordinary item
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.12

  

  
     

    

    	


  

  
    

    

    350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7530

    New York, NY 10118

    

    

    9 Cedar Brook Drive

    Cranbury, NJ 08512

    
      


    Tel:  (646) 440-9100

    Fax:  (646) 224-9585

    April 29, 2021

     

    Isabel Carmona

    

    

    Dear Isabel,

     

    Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is pleased to offer you a position as SVP, Chief Human Resources Officer starting on June 28, 2021, reporting to Gaurav Shah, CEO. This is a
      full-time position located at our Cranbury, NJ location.

     

    The starting base salary will be $350,000  per year, and you will be eligible for an annual discretionary bonus of up to 35%
        of your full year base salary payable in 2022 for your 2021 performance.

     

    You will also have healthcare benefits from the first day of employment, the opportunity to participate in a Rocket-sponsored 401(k) plan with 4%
      match and immediate 100% vesting, and 17 days of paid vacation annually.  Our schedule of paid holidays includes a Rocket-wide winter break from December 25 – January 1 of each year.

     

    In addition, subject to applicable approval by the Board of Directors, you will be issued stock options to purchase 75,000 common ordinary shares of Rocket
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc. pursuant to the applicable share option plan and your option agreement.  Employee shares vest over a three year period: 1/3 after one year, and the remaining 2/3 vesting quarterly over the subsequent two years.

     

    
      
        


    

    Your employment will be “at-will.” This means that either you or Rocket may terminate your employment at any time, with or without notice, and with or without cause. 
      This letter does not constitute a binding agreement and is not an employment contract, and Rocket may change your terms and conditions of employment at any time.

     

    Your employment at Rocket is contingent upon: (i) your providing proof of your right to work in the United States; (ii) your signing our standard Proprietary
      Information; Inventions Assignment Agreement; and Non-Solicitation/Non-Competition agreement; and (iii) if requested by Rocket, satisfactory results of a drug test and/or background test.

     

    Please confirm your acceptance of this offer by signing and returning this letter by April 30, 2021.

     

    We look forward to welcoming you to Rocket!

     

    Sincerely,

     

    

     

    Gaurav D. Shah, MD

     

    President & CEO,

    Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

     

    

    
      	
              Agreed and accepted:

            	 	 	 
	 	
              Date:

            	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
              [New Employee]
#### SAMUEL LEE BOWMAN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 8070

June 27, 1975

537 P.2d 316

*Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, and *Michael A. Cherry,*Assistant Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *Sherman H. Simmons,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Convicted of battery with a deadly weapon (NRS 200.481), appellant contends the evidence against him was insufficient.

Maria Valez identified appellant as the man who attacked her in a Las Vegas hotel, striking her on the head and face. The defendant then strangled Mrs. Valez with a cord and slashed her with a knife.

A hotel security officer apprehended appellant shortly thereafter, in a room not registered to him, and recovered a knife from his person. As the officer forced his way into the room, with gun drawn, he heard appellant say, “I did it; I did it. Don’t shoot; don’t shoot.” Later, after receiving Miranda warnings from a police officer called to the scene, appellant made other damaging statements.

We reject appellant’s sole assignment of error, believing this uncontroverted evidence ample to warrant his conviction.

Affirmed.
#### STATE v. UNDERWOOD

No. 93 PC.

Case below: 31 N.C. App. 156.

Petition by State for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 December 1976.
** **

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                Denise L. Ramos                  |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Denise                L. Ramos                      |
|   | Title:                Chief Financial Officer       |
|   | Furniture                Brands International, Inc. |
|   | May                10, 2007                         |
#### KATHERINE SLOAN, Appellant, *v.*THE CITY OF RENO, a Municipal Corporation, Within the County of Washoe, State of Nevada, Respondent.

No. 4078

November 7, 1958.

255.

*John S.*Halley, of Reno, for Appellant.

*Goldwater, Taber & Hill,*and *Samuel B. Francovich,*of Reno, for Respondent.

*327OPINION

By the Court,

Eather, J.:

Upon this appeal the plaintiff below asserts that the trial judge improperly took the ease from the jury through an order of involuntary dismissal. The sole question before us is whether issues remained for jury determination.

The action is for personal injuries resulting from a fall on a sidewalk in the city of Reno. The fall resulted from stumbling- over a two-inch sidewalk separation. The break in the walk was caused by tree roots. This condition of the walk had existed for three or four years prior to the accident. The plaintiff contends that the city was neg-ligent in permitting the condition to exist.

The trial judge, after hearing the plaintiff’s case in chief, ruled as a matter of law that no negligence had been' shown, the defect being minor and trivial, and that, in any event, the plaintiff had been guilty of contributory negligence in not having her eyes upon the walk at the time of the accident.

The fall occurred after dark on a sidewalk with which plaintiff was not familiar. Trees shaded the walk from street lights. Plaintiff testified she was looking ahead to the lights of a store to which she was proceeding, but that the light upon the walk was such that even had she been looking down she would not have seen the defect.

*328In such cases as this, negligence is established if under all the circumstances of the case the defect in the sidewalk is such that a reasonably prudent man with knowledge of the defect would anticipate danger to persons who, while exercising reasonable care for their own safety, made use of the walk. Arvidson v. City of Elmhurst, 11 Ill.2d 601, 145 N.E.2d 105. If upon this question the minds of reasonable men might differ a jury issue is presented.

In our view the minds of reasonable men might well have differed upon this question under the facts of this case. The negligence of the city was, then, a question for the jury.

Upon the issue of contributory negligence it was stated in Stoffel v. City of Cincinnati, 87 Ohio Ap.Rep. 235, 93 N.E.2d 303, 304: "It is perfectly apparent that pedestrians are required to use their senses while proceeding along a sidewalk for other lawful purposes than a minute inspection of that upon which they are about to tread, and have a right to presume that a public way will not contain such traps as existed in the instant case." The Ohio court was in that case dealing with the same sort of defect as that with which we are faced: a sidewalk separation caused by tree roots.

Under the facts of this case we conclude that reasonable minds might well differ upon the issue of contributory negligence and that this question should have been left to the jury.

It was, then, error to take these issues from the jury and to decide them as matters of law.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

BADT, C. J. and MERRILL, J., concur.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0450. JONES v. EVANS et al.

Andrew Evans and KurtRenfroe filed a civil action against ChetJonesseeking

repayment of a loan. When Jones failed to answer the claim, the trial court granted

Evans’s motion for default judgment. Jones appealed, but after the appeal was

docketed, Jones filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in the United States

Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia. He then filed a notice to stay

his appeal and has submitted a copy of the Chapter 7 petition to this Court. 

“[T]he appellate courts of this state are constitutionally required to dispose of

every case at the term of court for which it is entered on the court’s dockets for 

hearing or at the next term of court. See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. IX, Para.

II. Accordingly, this Court does not have the power to stay a case.” See Boardman

v. Brenninkmeijer, 328 Ga. App. 882, 882-883 (763 SE2d 267) (2014).

 We therefore remand this case to the trial court until the stay of proceedings

is lifted. See id. Once the bankruptcy stay is lifted, Jones may re-institute his appeal

by filing a new notice of appeal in the trial court within 30 days of the date of the

entry of bankruptcy court’s order lifting the stay. Id. 

November 20, 2018
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/20/2018
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 21.1



                                 Grey Wolf, Inc.
                              List of Subsidiaries


                                             State or Jurisdiction of Formation
                                             ----------------------------------

Grey Wolf Drilling Company L.P.                             Texas
Grey Wolf LLC                                             Louisiana
Grey Wolf Holdings Company                                  Nevada
Murco Drilling Corp.                                       Delaware
Grey Wolf International, Inc.                               Texas
Grey Wolf Drilling International, Ltd.                  Cayman Islands
Grey Wolf Drilling de Venezuela                            Venezuela
Drillers Inc., DI de Venezuela                             Venezuela
Grey Wolf Drilling de Mexico,
    S. de R.L. de C.V.                                      Mexico
Grey Wolf Mexico Holdings LLC                               Nevada
Grey Wolf International de Mexico,
    S. de R.L. de C.V.                                      Mexico
Servicios Grey Wolf, S. de R.L. de C.V.                     Mexico
DI/Perfensa, Inc.                                           Texas
Perforaciones Andinas, S.A.                                 Panama
DI Energy, Inc.                                             Texas
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, LOS ANGELES 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER,

Los Angeles, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0344

Issued: February 27, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On January 10, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a January 19, 2022 nonmerit decision

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 23-0344.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the January 19, 2022 decision was July 18, 2022. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until January 10, 2023, more than 180 days after the

January 19, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0344 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e).
2

explained his failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 23-0344, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0344 is dismissed.

Issued: February 27, 2023

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
INTER-TEL, INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER  31,  1999  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           19226
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    58397
<ALLOWANCES>                                      8814
<INVENTORY>                                      18816
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                119114
<PP&E>                                           63714
<DEPRECIATION>                                   29698
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  240249
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            58189
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        106853
<OTHER-SE>                                       61268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    240249
<SALES>                                         314221
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                314221
<CGS>                                           159463
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   159463
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                104832
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  8396
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  43765
<INCOME-TAX>                                     16619
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              27146
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     27146
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.01


</TABLE>