alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.44



 Exhibit 10.44 

Addendum No. 1 dated 24 April 2014 

to the Memorandum of Agreement dated 6th February 2014 (the “MOA”) 

made between 

“Million Hope Maritime S.A.”, of the Marshall Islands (the “Sellers”) and 

“Top Ships Inc.”, of the Marshall Islands or nominee (the “Buyers”) 

in connection with sale and purchase of Hull Nr S406 (the “Vessel”) 

With reference to Clause 3. Payment of the MOA, it is hereby mutually agreed between the Sellers and the Buyers that the balance of the Purchase Price shall
be paid to Sellers in cash only; i.e. Buyers no longer have the right to pay in shares. 
 All other terms and conditions of the MOA remain unchanged and in
full force and effect. 
  

			
	For the Sellers	  	For the Buyers
Exhibit 10.6

nStor Technologies, Inc.100 Century BoulevardWest Palm Beach, Florida 33417

April 30, 2004

Mr. H. Irwin Levy100 Century BlvdWest Palm Beach, FL 33417

Dear Mr. Levy:

We have agreed to the following amendments to that certain Promissory Note, dated June 27, 2002, which has been amended by the Second Note Modification Agreement on February 2, 2004, in the amount of $118,000 (the “Amended Note”), payable by nStorTechnologies, Inc. to H. Irwin Levy, copies of which are attached hereto.

1)         The maturity date of the Amended Note is hereby extended from April 30, 2004  to July 31, 2004 (“Maturity”).

2)         Accrued and unpaid interest on the Amended Note from February 2, 2004 through April 30, 2004 in the amount of $2,295 is hereby added to the $118,000 principal amount of the Amended Note so that as of the datehereof, the principal amount of the Amended Note has been increased to $120,295 (the “New Principal Amount”).  Interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum will accrue on the unpaid New Principal Amount and be payable at Maturity.

Except as set forth in this letter, the Note remains unmodified and in full force and effect.

Please indicate your concurrence with the foregoing.

Sincerely,

                                                                                               Agreed:/s/ JackJaiven                                                                         By:   /s/ H. Irwin LevyJackJaiven                                                                                          H. Irwin LevyVice President and Treasurer
#### Peter M. Bredel, Respondent, v. John Knaszak and Others, Appellants.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied, without costs. Held, that the judge who tried the case having resettled the case and exceptions after the order made at Special Term that the case and exceptions be deemed abandoned, this court should not give effect to the latter order and dismiss this appeal by reason thereof.
18446.

#### Mathis *v.*The State.

Argued January 12, 1954

Decided February 8, 1954

Rehearing denied February 24, 1954.

*George Thomas,*for plaintiff in error.

*Ben T. Willoughby, Solicitor-General, Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, Bubye G. Jackson, Wright & English,*contra.

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

1. The only evidence relied on here to lay the foundation for testimony that the deceased was a person of violent, turbulent, and dangerous character was the testimony of the defendant’s father and brother that the State’s witness had said to them that the deceased had his hand in his pocket and that he was pulling something out of his right-hand pocket. The sworn testimony of the State’s witness was to the contrary, and the evidence above was, at the most, merely impeaching evidence and is not itself probative evidence which will tend to prove any fact therein contained. *Progressive Life Ins. Co.*v. *Archer,*73 *Ga. App.*639 (37 S. E. 2d 713); *Henry*v. *Hoch,*76 *Ga. App.*819, 823 (47 S. E. 2d 159); *Loomis*v. *State,*78 *Ga. App.*336 (51 S. E. 2d 33). There is no evidence here showing the accused to have been attacked by the deceased, and until this is shown proof of the bad character of the deceased can not be made, and the court did not err in excluding this testimony. See *Smithwick*v. *State,*199 *Ga.*292 (34 S. E. 2d 28); *Beam*v. *State,*208 *Ga.*497 (2) (67 S. E. 2d 573).

2. The testimony of a witness for the accused that he had been threatened and intimidated by the son of the deceased was not in any respect material or relevant to the issues, particularly since it occurred between the time of the crime and the trial, and the court did not err in excluding it.

3. The evidence here, showing that the accused shot the deceased in the manner alleged in the indictment causing his death, was sufficient to authorize the verdict, and for this reason and the reasons stated above none of the general or special grounds is meritorious, and the court did not err in denying the motion for new trial as amended.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*AÜ the Justices concur.*
Exhibit 32.2

                Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to
             18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to
             Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
             ---------------------------------------------


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Paradise, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Jack M.
Laskowitz, as Chief Financial Officer of Paradise, Inc., certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:


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

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of
          operations of Paradise, Inc.



       /s/ Jack M. Laskowitz            Date:  August 13, 2005
       -----------------------------
       Jack M. Laskowitz
       Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Equity Inns, Inc.
(the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Howard
A. Silver, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

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

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

March 16, 2005                         By:/s/ Howard A. Silver
                                       -----------------------
                                       Howard A. Silver
                                       Title: Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                           OUTBOARD MARINE CORPORATION
                  EXHIBIT 11: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               Three Months               Six Months
                                                               Ended June 30,           Ended June 30,
                                                              -----------------       -----------------
(Dollars and Shares in Millions Except per Share Data)         2000        1999        2000       1999
                                                              ------      -----       ------      -----
<S>                                                           <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Basic Earnings per Share:
     Net earnings (loss) of common shareholders ............  $(28.0)     $33.8       $(59.5)     $21.9

     Weighted Average Number of Shares .....................    20.4       20.4         20.4       20.4
                                                              ------      -----       ------      -----
     Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Share .......................  $(1.37)     $1.66       $(2.92)     $1.07
                                                              ======      =====       ======      =====

Diluted Earnings Per Shares:
     Net Income (Loss) .....................................  $(28.0)     $33.8       $(59.5)     $21.9

     Weighted Average Number of Shares .....................    20.4       20.6         20.4       20.6
     Common Stock Equivalents (Stock Options) ..............    --         --           --         --
                                                              ------      -----       ------      -----
     Average Shares Outstanding ............................    20.4       20.6         20.4       20.6
                                                              ------      -----       ------      -----
        Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share ..................  $(1.37)     $1.64       $(2.92)     $1.06
                                                              ======      =====       ======      =====
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-01-2000
<CASH>                                           6,572
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,455
<ALLOWANCES>                                       200
<INVENTORY>                                     11,185
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,392
<PP&E>                                          23,583
<DEPRECIATION>                                (13,256)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,089
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,526
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,161
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,089
<SALES>                                         29,517
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,517
<CGS>                                           20,844
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,844
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,105
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (27)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (405)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (150)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (255)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (255)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**




Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












Sonic
      Solutions


Novato,
      California




We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-3 ( No.
      333-112523, No. 333-103624, and No. 333-102396) and Form
      S-8
      (No. 333-127627) of Sonic Solutions of our reports dated June 13, 2006 relating
      to the 2006 consolidated financial statements and related 2006 schedule, and
      the
      effectiveness of Sonic Solutions’ internal control over financial
      reporting, which
      appear in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated by reference
      in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.








/s/BDO
      Seidman, LLP


San
      Francisco, California




June
      13,
      2006
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*The Oriental Bank, Appellant. Carnegie Trust Company and Henry Schneider, Temporary Receivers of the Oriental Bank, Respondents.

First Department,

January 8, 1909.

Receivers — compensation — order of appointment vacated — form of order of reference.

It is the practice of the Supreme Court before passing upon the accounts of receivers to submit them to a referee where large sums must be accounted for.

The fact that an order appointing receivers has been vacated does not establish that they are not entitled to compensation as a matter of law, if the order was not vacated for lack of jurisdiction but merely because improvidentiy granted.

Where an order appointing receivers has been vacated and they apply for fees and commissions it should be ordered that their accounts and the objections thereto be referred, and that the referee report thereon with an opinion covering-the question of the receivers' right to compensation and the amount thereof.

Appeal by the defendant, The Oriental Bank, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Hew York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Hew York on the 24th day of April, 1908, as amended *ntmo fro tuno*by an order entered on the 4th day of May, 1908, referring to a referee all questions in connection with the application of the temporary receivers of the defendant for allowance of their fees, commissions and disbursements.

*Charles K.*Beekman, for the appellant.

*John L.*Wells, for the respondents.

Per Curiam:

It accords with the long-established practice of the court to subject the accounts of receivers to the scrutiny of a referee before passing upon them when, as in the present case, large sums have to be accounted for. The questions sought to be raised by the exceptions can best be disposed of on the coming in of that report. It cannot he said now, as matter of law, that the receivers are entitled *866to no compensation because the order appointing them was vacated. That vacation did not proceed upon the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to appoint receivers *ex*parte, but upon the ground that, having such jurisdiction, it was improvidently exercised. When all the facts are before the court it can be determined what allowance, if any, should be made to the receivers for their compensation and expenses. The order is not drawn in the usual form and should be modified so as to provide that the accounts of the receivers and the objections thereto be referred to the referee named in the order appealed from, and that lie report thereon with bis opinion, as well as upon the question as to what compensation and expense, if any, should be allowed to the receivers, and as so modified will be affirmed, without costs in this court.

Present — Ingraham, Lauqhlin, Clarke, Houghton and Scott, JJ.

Order modified as directed in opinion an'd as modified affirmed, without costs. Settle order on notice.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**







In
      connection with the amended Annual Report of Arotech Corporation (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2005 filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert S. Ehrlich, Chairman and Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that
      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.









By:  /s/
      Robert S. Ehrlich


Robert
      S.
      Ehrlich


Chairman
      and
      CEO


(Chief
      Executive
      Officer)





Date:
      June 15, 2006
#### Emily H. C. Jacocks, Respondent, *v.*Leo C. Dessar and Sadie Dessar, Appellants.

First Department,

December 11, 1908.

Guaranty — pleading —performance of condition precedent — exhaustion of remedy against principal.

A complaint against one who guaranteed performance of a contract is defective if it fails to allege non-performance by the principal of a condition precedent to liability.

But where the guaranty is one of general performance and payment such complaint need not show that the plaintiff exhausted her remedy against the principal before resorting to the guarantors.

Appeal by the defendants, Leo O. Dessar and another, from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 4th day of June, 1908, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a trial at the New York Special Term, overruling the defendant’s demurrer to the complaint.

*287
      *Herbert R.*Limburg, for the appellants.

*Dudley*Dupignac, for the respondent.

Houghton, J.:

The complaint sets forth the same facts alleged in *Jacocks*v. *Morrison*(129 App. Div. 284), decided herewith, and in addition that the defendants jointly and severally guaranteed the conveyance of the fifteen-acre plot or in default thereof the payment of the $3,500.

The complaint in this action is, therefore, defective in failing to allege selection of the particular plot to be conveyed, and the overruling of the demurrer was error for that reason.

Another ground, however, is urged which we deem untenable and which it is proper for us to decide,'and that is that it was incumbent upon plaintiff to allege that she had exhausted her remedy against the principal, Morrison, before resorting to the defendants as guarantors.

The guaranty alleged is one of general performance and payment. A guaranty of payment or of performance is an absolute undertaking imposing liability upon the guarantor immediately upon default of the principal regardless of whether any steps are taken to enforce the liability of the principal debtor. *(Wood*v. Tunnicliff, 74 N. Y. 38; 20 Cyc. 1450.) It was not necessary, therefore, for the plaintiff to allege the exhaustion of remedy against Morrison, the principal.

Because of the other defect, however, the interlocutory judgment overruling the demurrer to the complaint must be reversed, with costs, and the demurrer sustained, with costs, with leave to the plaintiff to amend upon payment of costs in this court and the court below.

Patterson, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin and Scott, JJ., concurred.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and demurrer sustained, with costs, with leave to plaintiff to amend on payment of costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-4420

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WIDNEY TREVOR DINNALL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Aiken. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR98-946-DSW)

Submitted: October 23, 2002 Decided: November 22, 2002

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Widney Trevor Dinnall, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Widney Trevor Dinnall appeals the district court’s fourth

order forfeiting substitute assets. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. See United States v. Dinnall, No. CR-98-946-

DWS (D.S.C. filed May 1, 2002; entered May 2, 2002). 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
#### The People of the State of New York v. Levolt M. Martoogesian.

Motion granted unless appeal be ready for March term.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of LILM, Inc. (the "Company") on Amendment No. 2 to Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,**George I. Norman, III**, Principal Accounting Officer of the            Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

| /s/ | **GEORGEI.NORMAN,III** |
|-----|------------------------|

 

**George I. Norman, III**

Principal Accounting Officer

September 17, 2008

 

 

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 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. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.50


SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This Second Amendment (“Amendment”) to the December 21, 2015 Employment Agreement (“Employment Agreement”) between Michael DeMarco (the “Executive”) and Intelsat US LLC (formerly known as Intelsat Corporation) is entered into by the undersigned parties.


WHEREAS, effective July 2, 2018, Intelsat Corporation was converted into a limited liability company and was renamed Intelsat US LLC (the “Conversion”); and


WHEREAS, as a result of the Conversion, the name of Executive’s employer is Intelsat US LLC, and all references in the Employment Agreement to the Company are deemed to refer to Intelsat US LLC.


NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
		
	1.
	Effective as of the date of the Conversion, the name of Executive’s employer is Intelsat US LLC, and all references in the Employment Agreement to the Company shall be deemed to refer to Intelsat US LLC.  


		
	2.
	As amended and modified by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 




		
	3.
	If there is any conflict between the terms of the Employment Agreement and this Amendment, the terms of this Amendment shall prevail. 






 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of December 28, 2018.






INTELSAT US LLC




By:     /s/ Michelle V. Bryan
Name: Michelle V. Bryan
Title: Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Chief Administrative Officer and Secretary






THE EXECUTIVE


/s/ Michael DeMarco
Michael DeMarco