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



Exhibit 3 NAVISTAR FINANCIAL CORPORATION
AND SUBSIDIARIES   ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND BY-LAWS The following documents of Navistar Financial Corporation are incorporated herein by reference: 3.1
    
    Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Navistar Financial Corporation
(as amended and in effect on December 15, 1987). Filed on Form 8-K dated
December 17, 1987. Commission File No. 1-4146-l.3.2
    
    The By-Laws of Navistar Financial Corporation (as amended February 29,
1988). Filed on Form 10-K dated January 19, 1989. Commission File No.
1-4146-1.3.3
    
    Amendment to the By-Laws of Navistar Financial Corporation. Filed as
Exhibit 3.1 on Form 10-K dated December 18, 2003. Commission File No.
1-4146-1.
 E-1
#### John E. Cassidy *vs.*Matthew Hyland.

Suffolk.

March 23.

April 6, 1876.

Colt & Loed, JJ., absent.

In an action on an account annexed for goods sold and delivered, there was evidence of the sale and delivery, and that the plaintiff’s bookkeeper showed a copy of the bill annexed to the writ to the defendant, who said he would settle it in a few days. *Held,*that this evidence was sufficient to warrant a verdict for the plaintiff; and that the defendant’s exceptions were frivolous, and must be overruled, with double costs.

Contract on an account annexed for goods sold and delivered. Trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows :

The plaintiff called his bookkeeper and asked him if he had shown the bill annexed to the writ to the defendant, and if so, what the defendant said. The question was objected to, but the judge admitted the question, and the witness testified that on one occasion, at the store of the plaintiff, he showed the defendant the bill annexed to the writ, and that the defendant said he would settle it in a few days. On cross-examination, the witness said this was not the bill, but a copy of it. He also gave evidence tending to show the sale and delivery of the items charged.

This was the only evidence introduced by the plaintiff; and the defendant asked the judge to rule, as matter of law, that it was insufficient to warrant a verdict for the plaintiff. The judge declined so to rule, and left the case to the jury on all the evi dence, and they returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defend' ant alleged exceptions.

*S. R.*Townsend, for the defendant.

*I. W. Richardson,*for the plaintiff, moved for double costs.

The Court *overruled the exceptions, with double*costs.
Exhibit 10.3 

Long Term Incentive– Performance Share Grant 

**PerformanceGoals:** Each performance share award will be based on the Company’sTotal Shareholder Return (TSR) performance (which represents stock price appreciation plusdividends reinvested) based on the three-year average relative to an investor-ownedutility peer group 

**Amount of Award:**Actualawards will be based on company performance as specified above, and can range from 0 to200 percent of target. The amount distributable to the Participant shall be determined inaccordance with the following schedule: 

**Performance Share payout:**Subject to the terms of the Plan, Performance Shares will be paid in Alliant Energyshares, or a combination of cash and shares, as soon as practicable at the end of eachperformance cycle, but not later than seventy-five days following the end of theperformance cycle.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 20, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130918 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

ELSIE FOSTER-SMITH, Personal Representative Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, of the Estate of THERESA FOSTER, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 130918 

 COA: 262483 
 Wayne CC: 03-326873-NO

KENYA N. SPRATT, 

 Defendant,
 

and 

FAST PETE’S HAULING & DEMOLITION CO.,

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

FIRM BUILT CONSTRUCTION, INC., and 

DALE HATT, 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 2, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

s0913 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 20, 2006 

 Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0325

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA RICHARD LARSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 31, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 22 2023

02/22/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0325
​


May 19, 2021
​
To: Mr. Charles Rosenblatt
​
​
Dear Charles,
​
Re: Payoneer Inc. Offer Letter
​
Reference is made to your Offer Letter dated June 14, 2020 in respect to your employment by Payoneer Inc. (the “Company”), as amended on January 20, 2021 (the “Offer Letter”). Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Offer Letter. 
​
Relocation Loan.  Pursuant to the Offer Letter, the Company paid you, with your first monthly salary, a gross amount of $75,000 as a relocation-loan, which was intended to become a grant after 12 months of continuous employment by the Company. The Company has agreed to an early forgiveness of the relocation loan effective as of the date hereof. Accordingly, said relocation loan shall be deemed forgiven as of the date hereof, subject to you signing your agreement and acceptance hereof as indicated below.
​
Amendment. Section 7 of the Offer Letter is hereby amended and restated in its entirety by replacing it with the following section 7:
​
“7. Termination: Employment with the Company is for no specific period of time. You or the Company each have the right to terminate your employment at any time by advance written notice to the other of one hundred eighty (180) days. The Company shall have the right, in its discretion, to ask that you cease work during all or part of the aforesaid notice period. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company shall be entitled to terminate your employment with immediate effect and without any prior notice for Cause. For the purpose hereof, “Cause” shall exist in case of (a) your conviction of, or plea of “guilty” of a felony or any crime involving moral turpitude, (b) your willful misconduct with regard to the business, assets or employees of the Company, (c) you being charged of theft, embezzlement, dishonesty or fraud with regard to the Company, (d) any other material breach by you of this Offer Letter which, if curable, remains uncured for seven (7) days after written notice thereof is given to you, and/or (e) any material breach of your duties, which are not curable to the Company."
​
Except as expressly set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Offer Letter shall remain in full force and effect. On and after the date hereof, each reference to the Offer Letter shall mean the Offer Letter as amended hereby.
​

​

​
   Payoneer Inc. 150 West 30th Street, Suite 500, New York, NY 10001                                 www.payoneer.com




​


This letter supersedes any prior letter or instrument relating to the matters herein. 
​
Please sign below if you agree and accept the foregoing terms.
​
​
Sincerely yours,
​
​
Aviva Arnon, Chief People Officer
Payoneer Inc.
​
​
​
Read and agreed.
​
​
____________________ 
​
Charles Rosenblatt

​

​
   Payoneer Inc. 150 West 30th Street, Suite 500, New York, NY 10001                                 www.payoneer.com
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 18, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00532-CV

APARTMENT EXPRESS LLC, Appellant

V.

SOUTHCHASE NORTH APARTMENTS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1062291

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed June 10, 2015. The notice of 

appeal was filed June 16, 2015.

1

To date, our records show that appellant has not 

paid the appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in 

 

1 We note that Apartment Express LLC is named in the notice of appeal signed by Datril 

Boston, who is not a party to the appeal or a licensed attorney. Except for the performance of 

ministerial tasks, corporations may appear and be represented only by a licensed attorney. 

Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., U.S.A., 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996).
2

civil cases unless party is excused by statute or by appellate rules from paying 

costs). Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 51.207. 

On July 21, 2015, this court ordered appellant to pay the appellate filing fee 

on or before August 5, 2015, or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has not 

paid the appellate filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant has 

failed to comply with notice from clerk requiring response or other action within 

specified time). 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Busby, and Brown.
| Name                                  | Country/State      ofIncorporation |   | % of      VotingSecurities      Owned |   |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Visiplex      Instruments Corporation | New      York                      |   |                                  | 100    | % |
|                                  |                               |   |                                  |   |   |
| Dent-X      International Inc.        | New      York                      |   |                                  | 100    | % |
|                                  |                               |   |                                  |   |   |
| QR      Imaging USA, Inc.             | New      York                      |   |                                  | 100    | % |
| QR      Imaging srl                   | Italy                              |   |                                  | 100    | % |
| QR      srl                           | Italy                              |   |                                  | 100    | % |
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of ourreports, dated March 15, 2006, relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements, the financial statement schedule and internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies,Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005 in the previously filed Registration Statements of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-126062, 333-86686, 333-86688, 333-53278, 033-88634, 333-41632, 333-41634, 333-41670, 333-28459,333-07831 and 033-88638) and on Form S-3 (File No. 333-131073). 

/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP 

San Diego, California 

March 15, 2006
agen-ex10111_241.htm



Exhibit 10.11.1

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO

CONSULTING AGREEMENT

This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT (this “Amendment 2”) is entered into as of January 1, 2022 (hereinafter the “Amendment 2 Effective Date”), by and between Agenus Inc., a Delaware corporation having an address at 3 Forbes Road, Lexington, MA 02421, USA (the “Company”), and Brian Corvese (the “Consultant”) (each a “Party” and together the “Parties”).  Capitalized terms used in this Amendment 2 and not otherwise defined herein shall have those meanings attributed to them in the Agreement (as defined below).

WHEREAS, the Company and the Consultant are parties to that certain Consulting Agreement effective January 1, 2020, as amended from time to time, pursuant to which the Company engaged Consultant to perform certain services for the Company (the “Agreement”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Parties now wish to amend the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement as set forth herein.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

1.In accordance with Section 3.1 of the Agreement, the Term of the Agreement is hereby extended through December 31, 2022 (“Revised Expiration Date”), unless terminated in accordance with the Agreement or further extended by mutual written agreement of the Parties.

 

2.The Parties acknowledge and agree that compensation for Services performed during the period from the Amendment 2 Effective Date until the Revised Expiration Date shall not exceed $120,000.00 during this period of time without the prior written consent of the Company.

 

3.Except as set forth in this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall continue, and shall be deemed to have continued, in full force and effect without interruption from the Effective Date.

 

4.This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, which, when taken together, shall constitute one agreement. If any signature is delivered by facsimile transmission or by e-mail delivery of a “.pdf” format data file, such signature shall create a valid and binding obligation of the Party executing (or on whose behalf such signature is executed) with the same force and effect as if such facsimile or “.pdf” signature page were an original thereof.

 

 

 

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

 



Exhibit 10.11.1

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment 2 to Consulting Agreement as of the Amendment 2 Effective Date:

 

 

AGENUS INC.:CONSULTANT:

 

 

/s/ Garo Armen/s/ Brian Corvese

Name: Garo ArmenName: Brian Corvese

Title: Chairman & CEO
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ OYSTER OPTICS, LLC, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

ALCATEL

- LUCENT USA, INC., CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants

- Appellees

______________________

2019

- 1255, 2019

- 1257

______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No s . 2:16

- cv

- 01297

- JRG, 2:16

- cv

- 01301

- JRG, 2:16

- cv

- 01302

- JRG, Judge J. Rodney Gilst rap.

______________________ SUA SPONTE

______________________ Before L OURIE , S CHALL , and C HEN , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM

. This court’s Order to Show Cause of May 8, 2020
, stated that
, in the absence of a response by May 22, 2020
, the opinion that issued under seal that same day would be unsealed. This court has not received a response from the parties. Accordingly, Case: 19-1255 Document: 80 Page: 1 Filed: 05/27/2020OYSTER OPTICS , LLC v. ALCATEL

- LUCENT USA , INC

. 2

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The opinion issued under seal on May 8, 2020 is hereby unsealed.

F OR THE C OURT

May 2 7 , 20 20 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 19-1255 Document: 80 Page: 2 Filed: 05/27/2020
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 22, 2020. 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. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 22, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21I0098. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al. v. ESTATE OF SUSIE ANN AMIN BY EXECUTOR DAA’OOD RASHEED AMIN, SR. et al. .
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 19V1210
# L_2007090EN.01009401.xml

| 30.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 90/94 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 90/94

---

COUNCIL JOINT ACTION 2007/203/CFSP

of 27 March 2007

extending the mandate of the EU-team to contribute to the preparations of the establishment of a possible International Civilian Mission in Kosovo, including a European Union Special Representative component

(ICM/EUSR Preparation Team)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 14 and Article 25(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 15 September 2006 the Council adopted Joint Action 2006/623/CFSP on the establishment of a EU-team to contribute to the preparations of the establishment of a possible International Civilian Mission in Kosovo, including a European Union Special Representative component (ICM/EUSR Preparation Team) (1). That Joint Action expires on 31 March 2007. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 15 September 2006 the Council adopted Joint Action 2006/623/CFSP on the establishment of a EU-team to contribute to the preparations of the establishment of a possible International Civilian Mission in Kosovo, including a European Union Special Representative component (ICM/EUSR Preparation Team) (1). That Joint Action expires on 31 March 2007.

| (2) | On 27 February 2007 the Political and Security Committee recommended that the mandate of the ICM/EUSR Preparation Team be extended. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 27 February 2007 the Political and Security Committee recommended that the mandate of the ICM/EUSR Preparation Team be extended.

| (3) | Joint Action 2006/623/CFSP should be extended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Joint Action 2006/623/CFSP should be extended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS JOINT ACTION:

Article 1

Joint Action 2006/623/CFSP is hereby extended until 31 July 2007.

Article 2

The financial reference amount of EUR 869 000 as set out in Article 9(1) of Joint Action 2006/623/CFSP shall be increased by EUR 807 000 in order to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the ICM/EUSR Preparation Team from 15 September 2006 to 31 July 2007.

Article 3

This Joint Action shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Article 4

This Joint Action shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 27 March 2007.

For the Council

The President

P. STEINBRÜCK

---

(1)  
  OJ L 253, 16.9.2006, p. 29.

1

---
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, John B. Wood, Chief Executive Officer of Telos Corporation, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Telos Corporation; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) forthe registrant and we have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to bedesigned under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5368 

To amend titles 5 and 39 of the United States Code to make Postal 

Inspectors eligible for availability pay for criminal investigators. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2010 

Mr. LYNCH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend titles 5 and 39 of the United States Code to 

make Postal Inspectors eligible for availability pay for 

criminal investigators. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘United States Postal 

5 Service Postal Inspectors Equity Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR AVAILABILITY PAY. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5545a of title 5, United 

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5368 IH

1 ‘‘(l) The provisions of subsections (a)–(h) providing 

2 for availability pay shall apply to a Postal Inspector. For 

3 the purpose of this section, section 5542(d) of this title, 

4 and section 13(a)(16) and (b)(30) of the Fair Labor 

5 Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(a)(16) and 

6 (b)(30)), a Postal Inspector shall be deemed to be a crimi7 nal investigator as defined in this section. For purposes 

8 of this subsection, the term ‘Postal Inspector’ has the 

9 meaning given such term under section 1003(c) of title 

10 39.’’. 

11 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 410(b)(11) 

12 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by striking 

13 ‘‘Section 5520a’’ and inserting ‘‘Sections 5520a and 

14 5545a’’. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS