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



Exhibit 10.41(b)



AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION AND ROBIN HAYES


This AMENDMENT NO. 2 (the “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement, dated February 16, 2015 and amended February 16, 2017 (collectively, the “Prior Agreement”), by and between JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and ROBIN HAYES (the “Executive”), is hereby entered into this 13th day of February 2020.


WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive previously entered into the Prior Agreement; and


WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to provide for the continued employment of the Executive on the terms and conditions contained in the Prior Agreement, as modified by this Amendment;


NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:


1. Section 2 of the Prior Agreement is replaced in its entirety by the following:


“2.    Term of Employment. The Executive’s employment under this Agreement commenced on February 16, 2015 (the “Effective Date”). On February 13, 2020, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) exercised its discretion to extend the initial term of the Agreement (the “Term”), such that this Agreement shall terminate on the earlier of (i) July 31, 2022 or (ii) the termination of the Executive’s employment under this Agreement.”


2. Section 3(a) of the Prior Agreement is hereby amended to reflect the Executive’s annual base salary of $625,000, effective February 1, 2020, subject to future adjustments at the discretion of the Board. 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
3.  Section 3(b) of the Prior Agreement is hereby amended to reflect the Executive’s annual incentive bonus target to be 150% of base salary for 2020, subject to future adjustments at the discretion of the Board. 


3. All remaining terms of the Prior Agreement shall continue in full force and effect, as amended hereby.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be signed by its duly authorized officer pursuant to the authority of its Board, and the Executive has executed this Amendment, as of the date set forth above.




	
		
	JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION

	By:
	/s/ Mike Elliott

	Mike Elliott

	Chief People Officer






	
		
	EXECUTIVE

	/s/ Robin Hayes

	Robin Hayes

	Dated: February 13, 2020
Exhibit 23.1
 
 
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 333-169568, 333-146768, 333-100842, 333-72990, and 333-109962) and the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-54006), respectively, of our reports dated June 16, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Daktronics, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Daktronics, Inc., included in this Annual Report(Form 10-K) for the year ended April 30, 2011.
 
 Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Daktronics, Inc. listed on Item 15(a). This schedule is the responsibility of Daktronics, Inc.’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.
  
 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
 Minneapolis, Minnesota
 June 16, 2011
ex_172394.htm


Exhibit 10.1.1


 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL LEASE AGREEMENT


 


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL LEASE AGREEMENT is made this  26th  day of September, 2018 by and between LINDEMUTH, INC DBA GAGE CENTER, (hereinafter referred to as "LANDLORD") and US ALLIANCE CORPORATION (hereinafter referred to as "TENANT").


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS, LANDLORD and TENANT executed and entered into a Lease which commenced on October, 11th, 2011, and First Amendment to Lease Agreement made on August 27th 2014 for property located at 4123 SW Gage Center Dr. Suite 240 - Topeka, Kansas 66604 as the same has subsequently been renewed (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Lease") for those Premises consisting of approximately 4,067 +/- square feet located at 4123 SW Gage Center Dr. Suite 240 - Topeka, Kansas 66604 ("Premises").


 


WHEREAS, LANDLORD and TENANT desire to extend the term and amend the Lease as hereinafter set forth:


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, LANDLORD and TENANT hereby agree that the term of the Lease is amended as follows:


 


1)           LEASE TERM: Tenant hereby desires to extend its lease term for two (2) years starting 0l/01/19 through 12/31/20 at a monthly base rent of$3,151.93.


 


2)           OPTION TO RENEW: Provided Tenant is not in default of this Lease Agreement, Tenant shall have the option to renew this Lease Agreement for three (3), one (1) year options under the same terms and conditions with the Minimum rents to be adjusted upon the schedule below. Tenant must give Landlord written notice of Tenant's desire to exercise each individual Options to Renew ninety (90) days prior to the then lease expiration date. Failure to give such notice to renew will result in the individual Options to Renew becoming null and void.


 


Option 1: 01/01/21 - 12/31/21 at a monthly base rent of $3,151.93


Option 2: 0l/01/22 - 12/31/22 at a monthly base rent of $3,309.53


Option 3: 01/01/23 - 12/31/23 at a monthly base rent of $3,309.53


 


3)           Tenant understands and agrees that there is not an elevator within the building of the leased Premises and the language in section 7b of the original Lease Agreement referencing the Landlord being responsible for elevator service shall be deleted.


 


"All other terms and conditions of the original Lease which commenced on October 11th, 2011 and First Amendment to Lease Agreement made on August 27th, 2014, shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect".


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this instrument the day and year first above written.


 






 




 




 


LANDLORD:


LINDEMUTH, INC.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements of
The Quizno's  Corporation and Subsidiaries on Form S-3 (No. 333-38691) and Forms
S-8 (Nos. 333-45549 and 333-45205),  of our report dated March 2, 1999 appearing
in the annual report on Form 10-KSB of The Quizno's Corporation and Subsidiaries
for the year  ended  December  31,  1998 and to the  reference  to us under  the
heading  "Experts"  in the  Prospectus,  which  is  part of  these  Registration
Statements.




                                         /s/ Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC
                                             Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       6,066,803
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      20,933,322
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               756,625
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 41,143,033
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    310,522,161
<ALLOWANCE>                                (2,973,457)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             397,229,473
<DEPOSITS>                                 305,165,267
<SHORT-TERM>                                29,703,351
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          5,971,193
<LONG-TERM>                                 22,500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,240
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,868,422
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             397,229,473
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             25,315,842
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            3,525,127
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               788,199
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            29,629,168
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          14,846,677
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          18,979,426
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       10,649,742
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                1,415,500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             101,787
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             10,306,353
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                785,634
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     466,634
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   466,634
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.84
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,060,372
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               632,381
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              6,656,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                           (2,670,322)
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                1,293,497
<RECOVERIES>                                 (181,132)
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                          (2,973,457)
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                       (2,973,457)
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Order entered January 22, 2020

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00982

- CV

DONALD O. OZUMBA, M. D., ET AL.

, Appellant s

V.

JANE DOE NO. 6

, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380

- 03960

- 2018



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellee’s J anuary 17 , 20 20 unopposed motion to extend the time to

file her brief on the merits

. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to February 6, 2020.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CHARLES COMBS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2023-0768

May 24, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, 

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Andrea M. Norgard, 

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and J. Wade Stidham, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SLEET, C.J., and ATKINSON and SMITH, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2
November 21, 2019


Bottomline Technologies
325 Corporate Drive
Portsmouth, NH 03801
P 603.436.0700


Mr. Joe Mullen
60 Tidewater Farm Road
Greenland, NH 03840


Dear Joe,
The letter agreement dated November 17, 2016 (the "2016 Letter Agreement") between you and Bottomline Technologies sets forth the amended and restated terms under which you would continue to be retained as Chairman for the three-year period ending November 19, 2020. The purpose of this letter agreement (the "2019 Letter Agreement") is to extend the term of the letter agreement between you and Bottomline Technologies dated November 18, 2010 for an additional three years, through November 17, 2023, subject to certain modifications described below.


A. For the period commencing on November 19, 2020 and ending on November 17, 2023, Bottomline Technologies agrees to retain your services as Chairman for a fee of $90,000 per year, which is in addition to the annual board retainer of $25,000.


B. With respect to Section 4 (Stock Options and Restricted Stock) and 5 (Vesting) of the 2010 Letter Agreement, any references to the date, "November 17, 2014" (which were updated to "November 19, 2020" in the 2016 Letter Agreement) shall be replaced with November 17, 2023.


C. With respect to Section 6 (Health Insurance), the reference to "age 65" was replaced with "age 70" in the 2013 Letter Agreement and will be adjusted to "age 75".


Except as otherwise expressly stated herein, all other terms of the 2010 Letter Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


Agreed as of the date set forth above


Bottomline Technologies (de), Inc.


	
			
	By
	 
	 

	/s/ Jennifer M. Gray
	 
	/s/ Joseph L. Mullen

	Jennifer M. Gray, Chair
	 
	Joseph L. Mullen

	By
	 
	 

	/s/ Jeffrey C. Leathe
	 
	/s/ Peter Gibson

	Jeffrey C. Leathe
	 
	Peter Gibson
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 96-30098 Summary Calendar

_____________________ EVARISTUS MACKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MIKE GILLIAM, Warden, Et Al.,
Defendants,
MIKE GILLIAM, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

(93-CV-1535)

_________________________________________________________________ January 10, 1997 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

E varistus Mackey, Louisiana inmate # 317335, appeals from a judgment for the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action, in which he claimed that the defendants violated his due

process rights by failing to give him breaks from isolated confinement and that the prison’s policy of removing bedding from- 2 -

his cell during nonsleeping hours violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punis hment. We A FFIRM the judgment for essentially the reasons stated by the district court. Mackey v. Gilliam , No. 93-CV-1535 (W.D. La. Nov. 9, 1994, and Jan. 18, 1996) (unpublished).

AFFIRMED
In the Senate of the United States,

October 3, 1996.

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 632) entitled ‘‘An Act to enhance fairness in compensating owners of patents used by the United States.’’, do

pass with the following

AMENDMENTS:

1 Ω1æPage 2, line 8, strike out all after ‘‘States’.’’ down to

2 and including ‘‘Acts.’’ in line 13 and insert: Notwithstand3 ing the preceding sentences, unless the action has been pend4 ing for more than 10 years from the time of filing to the

5 time that the owner applies for such costs and fees, reason6 able and entire compensation shall not include such costs

7 and fees if the court finds that the position of the United

8 Stated was substantially justified or that special cir9 cumstances make an award unjust.

10 Ω2æPage 2, line 17, strike out øJanuary 1, 1995¿ and

11 insert: the date of the enactment of this Act

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 632

AMENDMENTS
#### M. A. PARK v. T. G. MARKLEY.

No. 2626.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

May 3, 1944.

Writ of Error Refused June 26, 1944.

For former opinion, see 17 So.2d 459.

C. A. Blanchard, of Donaldsonville, and Julius C. Pearlstine, of New Orleans, for appellant.

McCoy & King, of Lake Charles, and Jos. A. Nicolosi, of Plaquemine, for appellee.

*74PER CURIAM.

In the application for rehearing herein, counsel for plaintiff quotes what he states to be a principle of láw announced by the Supreme Court in the case of Richardson v. Helis, 192 La. 856, 189 So. 454.

The quotation follows: “If a judgment is the basis of a cause of action in California which has a longer prescription than Louisiana, an action brought on that judgment in Louisiana against a creditor in California has the same results as if the action was brought in California, for the judgment must be given the same credit validity and effect in every State of the Union as it has in the State of California.”

If the Supreme Court had announced such a principle of law we would be inclined to grant a rehearing and reconsider the case because it would tend to support the contention made on behalf of the plaintiff that the judgment rendered in his 'favor in the State of Texas should be given full faith and credit by the courts of this State under Article IV, Section 1 of the Federal Constitution.

We have carefully read the case of Richardson v. Helis again, and find no such principle of law therein announced, nor do we find the language quoted by counsel in the application for rehearing. A part of the quotation is found in the following portion of the opinion [192 La. 856, 189 So. 457]:

“The learned counsel for the defendant freely concede that the California judgment is still a basis of a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in California. In the light of this admission and both of the foregoing quotations, it is clear that, since the plaintiff could use the California judgment as a foundation for a cause of action against the defendant in California — that the judgment is likewise a legal basis of a cause of action in the State of Louisiana, for under Article V, Section I, of the Federal Constitution, this judgment must be given the same credit, validity and effect in every State of the Union as it has in the State of California.”

A comparison of that language with the language quoted in the application for rehearing clearly shows that no such principle of law as stated by counsel was announced by the Supreme Court. A rereading of the Richardson case, as we interpret it, only serves to strengthen our conviction in the correctness of our opinion heretofore handed down, and for these reasons a rehearing is refused.
#### William W. Satonstall et al., Plaintiffs in Error, *v.*Canal Commissioners, Defendants in Error.

ERROR TO COOK.

Where an order is made, that a bill of exceptions be filed in vacation, it will be understood to mean the next ensuing vacation of the court at which the order is made.

During the term in which the judgment in this case was entered, an order was made on the record that the bill of exceptions be filed in vacation. It was filed after two terms of the court had intervened. The defendant in error entered his motion to exclude it from the record.

J. N. Arnold, for the motion.

J. C. Champlin, contra.

*Per Curiam.*

The motion must prevail. The order must be understood to mean the vacation immediately succeeding the term at which the judgment was rendered. The order did not extend to any other vacation.

By any other construction, there might not be any limitation fixing the time for filing the exceptions.
* 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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLARENCE A. GIPBSIN, AKA Clarence

Gibson,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

WALKER,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 09-15362

D.C. No. 1:00-cv-05381-WMW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

William M. Wunderlich, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

San Francisco, California

Before: HUG, BEEZER and HALL, Circuit Judges.

Prisoner Clarence Gipbsin appeals pro se the district court’s judgment in

favor of defendant Walker following a jury trial in Gipbsin’s action alleging

FILED

JUL 02 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
excessive use of force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm.

Gipbsin has waived the claims he raises on appeal because he does not show

that he raised them before the district court, nor does he support them with any

analysis, legal argument, citation to authority, or record evidence. To preserve an

issue for appeal, the appellant must show that he raised that issue before the district

court. Tennison v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 244 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2001). 

The appellant must also do more in his briefing than summarily assert that the

district court erred. Sekiya v. Gates, 508 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2007); Indep.

Towers of Wash. v. State of Wash., 350 F.3d 925, 929–30 (9th Cir. 2003).

Here, Gipbsin makes no showing that he raised any of his appellate issues at

trial. Nor does he make any assertions of district court error that are specific

enough for us to review. The issues he raises on appeal are therefore waived.

AFFIRMED.
### NUMBER 13 - 14 - 00 388 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE STATE FARM LLOYDS, RICHARD FREYMANN, RICHARD LEE WALLIS, AND BERNADETTE GALVAN

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Perkes and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion 1 

### Per Curiam Relators, State Farm Lloyds, Richard Freymann, Richard Lee Wallis, and Bernadette Galvan, have filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that this Court direct respondent, the Honorable Rose Guerra Reyna, Presiding Judge of the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, to withdraw her order denying relators’ verified plea in abatement and to enter an order abating the suit for damages brought agai nst relators by the real part y in i nterest, Victor Garza Jr., until sixty days after he provide s

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2

relators with a notice letter for his claim stating the specific, separate amounts for the claimed damages and attorney’s fees. See T EX

. I NS

. C ODE A NN . § 541.154 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.) (“Prior Notice of Action”); id. § 541.155 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.) (“Abatement”); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.1 (“Commencement” of Original Proceedings). By order previously issued in this cause, this Court granted temporary relief and requested that the real part y in interest file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a),(b). Suc h response has been duly filed.
T he Court, having examined and fully considered th e petition for writ of mandamus, the response, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that th e petition for writ of mandamus should be denied for the reasons expressed in our opinion in In re State Farm Lloyds, Richard Freymann, and Nathan Burris , No. 1 3

- 14

- 00347

- CV, 2014 WL _____ (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi Aug. 27, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.), available at http://www.search.txcourts.gov/case.aspx?cn=13

- 14

- 00348

- CV. Accordingly, the Court LIFTS the stay previously imposed by this Court and DENIES the petit ion for writ of mandamus

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 52.8( d ).

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 2nd day of September, 2014.