alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
altn_ex105.htm

EXHIBIT 10.5
  
SECOND AMENDMENT 
TO THE
PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING AGREEMENT
 
This SECOND AMENDMENT is to modify, delete and add certain terms and conditions to that certain Professional Consulting Agreement by and between VestCo Corp., a Delaware corporation (“Vestco”), and Power Clouds Inc., a Nevada corporation (“PWCL”) signed by both parties on July 25, 2016 (the “Agreement.
 
Unless otherwise indicated, terms used herein that are defined in the Agreement shall have the same meanings herein as in the Agreement.
 
The parties hereto agree as follows:
 
1. Immediately effective upon the full execution of this Amendment, VestCo hereby agrees to reduce its annual fees to One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000) per year. 
 
2. In accordance with the above, Section 4.1 of the Agreement shall be modified so that it reads as follows:
 
4.1 Base Fee. As compensation for VestCo's performance of its duties hereunder, Company shall pay to VestCo a quarterly fee of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) payable quarterly in advance pursuant to invoices submitted by VestCo. In the event this Agreement is terminated by either party, for any reason, VestCo will be compensated in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in Section 6 below.
 
Except as herein modified, all the terms and conditions of the above referenced Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of any conflict between this Second Amendment and the Agreement, the provisions of this Second Amendment shall prevail.
 
The parties hereby agree that signatures transmitted and received via facsimile or other electronic means shall be treated for all purposes of this Second Amendment as original signatures and shall be deemed valid, binding and enforceable by and against both parties.
 
BOTH PARTIES HERETO REPRESENT THAT THEY HAVE READ THIS SECOND AMENDMENT, UNDERSTAND IT, AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS STATED HEREIN, AND ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A SIGNED, TRUE AND EXACT COPY OF THIS AMENDMENT.
 
Second Amendment
Professional Consulting Agreement
 
Initials: _______
Power Clouds Initials: ______
 
	 
	1
	
 
	 


   
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have agreed to amend the terms and conditions of the Second Amendment.
 
	 	POWER CLOUDS INC.	
	 	 	 	 
		By:	/s/ Roberto Forlani	
	 
	Name: 
	Roberto Forlani	 
	 	Its: 	Director	 
	 
	Date:
	November 8, 2017
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	VESTCO CORP.
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	By: 
	/s/ Vincent Browne
	 

	 
	Name: 
	Vincent Browne
	 

	 
	Its: 
	President
	 

	 
	Date: 
	November 8, 2017
	 



 
Second Amendment
Professional Consulting Agreement
 
	 
	2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

# ACTION:

Meeting Announcement. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the meeting date for the 24th meeting of the American Health Information Community in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.) The American Health Information Community will advise the Secretary and recommend specific actions to achieve a common interoperability framework for health information technology (IT). 

*Meeting Date:*                         September 23, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. (Eastern).                     

# ADDRESSES:

Hubert H. Humphrey building (200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201), The Great Hall/Lobby. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The meeting will include a demonstration of the Nationwide Health Information Network (NHIN); an update on the AHIC                           ( print page 52052)                        Successor organization; a discussion on the health information technology Strategic Plan; and final reports from the Confidentiality, Privacy & Security Workgroup and the Population Health/Clinical Care Connections Workgroup.                 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

                         Visit                         *http://www.hhs.gov/​healthit/​ahic.html.*

                        A Web cast of the Community meeting will be available on the NIH Web site at:                         *http://www.videocast.nih.gov/​.*

If you have special needs for the meeting, please contact (202) 690-7151. 

Dated: August 26, 2008. 

Judith Sparrow, 

Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.

[FR Doc. E8-20675 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4150-45-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Ramon Guerrero

v. 06-cv-173-SM

NH Department of Corrections, et al. 

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated April 10, 2007, no objection having been filed, for the reasons set

forth therein. Plaintiff’s due process claim and defendant New Hampshire

Department of Corrections is hereby dismissed. The inadequate medial care claim

and pendant State law claims against defendants Freedman, Carroll and Ash, and

the service of the failure to protect claim and pendant State law claims against

defendants Christie and Conner will go forward.

SO ORDERED.

July 23, 2007 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Lawrence A. Vogelman , Esq. 

Glenn A. Perlow, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00173-JL Document 13 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) by Porta Systems Corp. (the “Company”), I,
Edward B. Kornfeld, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Leslie K.
Brand, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, based on my knowledge:




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




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





Dated:  November
      12, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/
      Edward B. KornfeldEdward
      B. Kornfeld
                    Chief
      Executive OfficerBy:
                  /s/
      Leslie K. BrandLeslie
      K. Brand
                    Chief
      Financial Officer




This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




A signed
original of this written statement required by §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished upon request.
Exhibit 32.b



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



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), the undersigned officer of DataJungle Software Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Report on Form 10-QSB for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 (the Form 10-QSB) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-QSB.



|Dated: November 14, 2005 |  | /s/Edward Munden
Edward Munden
President & Chief Executive Officer (principal financial and accounting officer)
|------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-QSB pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and 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, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, CoreyHenry, certify that: 

1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and allreports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-5 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2.    Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.    Based on my knowledge, all of thedistribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4.    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of RegulationAB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their relatedattestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included asan exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells FargoBank, N.A. and Computershare Trust Company, N.A. 

 
By: 
/s/ Corey Henry
Name: Corey HenryTitle: 
President and Chief Executive Officer

SantanderDrive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor
 (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)Date: March 31, 2022**
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has deter mined that this

opinion s h ould 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

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 96-60281

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

WILLIE HENRY JONES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STEWART MURPHY, Individually and in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Mississippi

(4:94-CV-316-S-D)

September 26, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Willie Henry Jones, #40413, appeals from the district court’s

order dismissing his civil rights suit for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies and failure to comply with an order of the

court pu rsuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Prisoners ordered to-2-

exhaust remedies must do so even if they perceive the prison

grievance system to be inadequate. See Marsh v. Jones, 53 F.3d

707, 710 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court did not abuse its

discretion in dismissing Jones’ suit for failure to comply with the

magistrate judge’s stay order.

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc.

v. Civil No. 06-cv-100-JD

HemCon, Inc.

O R D E R

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. moves in limine to

preclude HemCon, Inc. from introducing evidence at trial related

to Vascular Solutions, Inc. v. Marine Polymer Techs., Inc., 590

F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2009), and to the reexamination proceeding. 

HemCon objects to both motions on the ground that the “related

to” language is too broad. HemCon agrees that evidence of the

Vascular Solutions case and of the reexamination proceeding will

not be introduced, subject to its reservation of rights.

HemCon explains that evidence pertinent to its invalidity

defenses in this case will also be introduced in the

reexamination proceeding. Similarly, HemCon contends that

testimony given in the Vascular Solutions case about Marine

Polymer’s employees’ responsibilities, competing products, and

other impeachment evidence are relevant in this case. HemCon

agrees that it will not introduce evidence, statements, or

arguments which indicate that the USPTO has granted HemCon’s

request for reexamination of the ‘245 patent, or evidence,

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 251 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 2
statements, or arguments which are directly related to the claim

and allegations of product disparagement, the verdict, and the

appeal in Vascular Solutions, unless Marine Polymer “opens the

door” to such evidence.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Marine Polymer’s motions in

limine to preclude evidence related to the reexamination

proceeding (document no. 199) and the Vascular Solutions case

(document no. 200) are granted to the extent allowed in this

order. Before introducing any evidence related to the

reexamination proceeding or the Vascular Solutions case, HemCon

shall notify the court and opposing counsel and shall not

introduce such evidence without prior approval of the court.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

March 30, 2010

cc: Julie M. Baher, Esquire

Garet K. Galster, Esquire

Daniel R. Johnson, Esquire

Heather E. Krans, Esquire

Joseph A. Kromholz, Esquire

Lynda Q. Nguyen, Esquire

Brian M. Poissant, Esquire

Daniel D. Ryan, Esquire

Ognian V. Shentov, Esquire

Jonathan M. Shirley, Esquire

Daniel E. Will, Esquire

Leigh S. Willey, Esquire

2

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 251 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States

v. 05-cr-281-01-SM

Paul McGrail

ORDER

Re: Document No. 13, Motion for Seal of Sentencing

Memorandum and Motion for Seal at Level 1

Ruling: Denied. The motion does not disclose an adequate

basis for sealing the judicial document. The public enjoys both a

common law and First Amendment right of access to judicial

documents and records. A strong presumption of public access to

and right to observe criminal proceedings exists, which promotes

the appearance of justice, an informed public, an accountable

judiciary and executive, and assures propriety in the

administration of the criminal justice system. In some

circumstances legitimate privacy concerns may warrant limited

restriction of public access, but this case does not present such

circumstances. Defendant seeks a sentence based upon specific

characteristics and circumstances, not involving the privacy

interests of living third parties, but peculiar to him. Those

factors are critical to the sentencing process, and are not of the

type sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access. See

e.g. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980);

CBS, Inc. v. District Court, 765 F.2d 823 (9th Cir. 1985); U.S. v.

Milken, 780 F.Supp. 123 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). 

 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief District Judge

Date: November 14, 2006

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Arnold Huftalen, AUSA

USPO Pingree

Case 1:05-cr-00281-SM Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

James Wellington,

Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 04-cv-478-SM

Acting Warden of the

Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility,

Defendant

O R D E R

Petitioner has filed a motion to reconsider (document no.

15) the court's denial of his earlier motion to proceed in forma

pauperis (document no. 12). That motion to reconsider is

granted. Having reviewed the matter, it is apparent that the

court erroneously juxtaposed two electronic rulings in ECF on two

of petitioner's motions that were submitted to the court

electronically together. Thus, the motion to proceed in forma

pauperis was marked "denied" when it should have been marked

"granted." In addition, however, the other motion - for a

certificate of appealability (document no. 11) - was erroneously

marked "granted" when it was intended to be marked "denied." In

fairness to petitioner, the court has revisited and considered

anew his earlier motion for a certificate of appealability, and

has carefully reviewed the court's order and opinion granting

Case 1:04-cv-00478-SM Document 20 Filed 02/17/06 Page 1 of 2
2

summary judgment to defendant. The court reaffirms its earlier

intended ruling. But for an administrative error by the

undersigned judge, the ruling on petitioner's request for a

certificate of appealability would have been docketed as

"denied," and that error shall be corrected. In addition, having

sua sponte reconsidered the matter on the merits, as well as

identifying the administrative error, the court reaffirms that

the motion for a certificate of appealability is denied;

petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of

a constitutional right. Obviously, however, nothing prevents the

petitioner from seeking a certificate of appealability from the

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The motion

to proceed in forma pauperis (document no. 12) is granted. The

motion for a certificate of appealability (document no. 11) is

denied." 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

February 17, 2006

cc: David M. Rothstein, Esq.

Susan P. McGinnis, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00478-SM Document 20 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 2
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of the Treasury United States Mint
 SUMMARY: The United States Mint is adjusting prices for its American Eagle Platinum Proof Coins and American Eagle Platinum Uncirculated Coins. Pursuant to the authority that 31 U.S.C. 5111(a) and 5112(k) grant the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue platinum coins, and to prepare and distribute numismatic items, the United States Mint mints and issues 2007 American Eagle Platinum Proof and Uncirculated Coins in four denominations with the following weights: one-ounce, one-half ounce, one-quarter ounce, one-tenth ounce. The United States Mint also produces American Eagle Platinum Proof and Uncirculated four-coin sets that contain one coin of each denomination. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701(b)(2)(B), the United States Mint is changing the price of these coins to reflect the increase in value of the underlying precious metal content of the coins—the result of increases in the market price of platinum. Accordingly, effective February 1, 2008, the United States Mint will commence selling the following 2007 American Eagle Proof and Uncirculated Coins according to the following price schedule: Description
PriceAmerican Eagle Platinum Proof Coins:One-ounce platinum coin
$1,979.95One-half ounce platinum coin
999.95One-quarter ounce platinum coin
535.95One-tenth ounce platinum coin
269.95Four-coin platinum set
3,629.95American Eagle Platinum Uncirculated Coins:One-ounce platinum coin
$1,869.95One-half ounce platinum coin
949.95One-quarter ounce platinum coin
499.95One-tenth ounce platinum coin
229.95Four-coin platinum set
3,479.95
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria C. Eskridge, Associate Director for Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 Ninth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500. Authority:
                        31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112 & 9701. Dated: January 31, 2008. Daniel P. Shaver, Acting Deputy Director, United States Mint.


[FR Doc. E8-2156 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-02-P
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.4
ADDENDUM TO
SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE
Bernardo Hees (“Executive”) and Kraft Heinz Foods Company (“Kraft Heinz” or “the Company”), the parties to the Separation Agreement and General Release executed June 25, 2019 (“Original Agreement”), hereby agree to addend the Original Agreement by adding the following provision to its terms and conditions:
     1.    Executive’s health and dental benefits will end on June 30, 2019 (“Termination Date”). Beginning with the first day following the Termination Date, Executive may elect to continue coverage for himself and his enrolled dependents for up to eighteen (18) months through COBRA. Beginning with the first day following the Termination Date, Kraft Heinz will provide twelve (12) months of Company-paid COBRA (i.e., medical/RX drug and dental coverage) for Executive and his enrolled dependents. “Company-paid” is defined as the employer’s portion of the premium for such coverage including the COBRA administration fee.  Executive will continue to pay his current premium charged for such coverage. Be advised that Vision is excluded from Company-paid COBRA coverage as it is not a company-subsidized plan. Executive will have the opportunity to elect vision coverage and pay for it at his expense. If Executive becomes eligible for other group coverage during the 12-month Company subsidized COBRA period, Executive will need to notify the Kraft Heinz Benefits Center as he will no longer be eligible for the subsidy.
This Addendum is in addition to the terms and conditions of the Original Agreement. The terms and conditions of the Original Agreement and releases contained therein apply equally to this Addendum and are incorporated herein.


	
				
	/s/ Bernardo Hees
	 
	Date:
	June 30, 2019

	Bernardo Hees
	 
	 
	 






	
		
	 
	ACCEPTED FOR THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY

	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Melissa Werneck

	 
	 

	Title:
	Chief People Officer

	 
	 

	Date:
	June 30, 2019