alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

[AGCO LOGO]     AGCO Corporation
                4205 River Green Parkway Duluth, GA USA 30096-2584
                www.agcocorp.com
                Telephone 770.813.9200

April 21, 2004

Dear Bob,

This letter will confirm certain amendments to the contractual employment
arrangements between the Company and yourself.

1.   APPOINTMENT:

Upon the appointment of a new President and Chief Executive Officer (and his
receipt of the necessary Visa), you will no longer hold the positions of
Executive Chairman, President, and Chief Operating Officer. You will continue to
hold the title of Chairman of the Board. No change will be made in your
compensation and fringe benefits between the appointment date of the new CEO and
January 1, 2005, with the exception of your incentive compensation as detailed
below. Your status and compensation as Chairman of the Board will be reviewed
annually. However, it is to be expected that your time spent on insuring the
success of the new CEO will decline rapidly and your compensation will be
commensurate with competitive companies and company policy.

2.   BENEFITS

Your current compensation, fringe and other benefits shall continue unchanged
until December 31, 2004, except that your bonus (IC Plan) shall be calculated
pro-rata on the period from January 1, 2004, to the date of your appointment as
Chairman. If earned, your bonus shall be paid as normal in early 2005.

3.   SPECIAL BONUS

In order to promote a successful transition of duties and responsibilities to
the new President and Chief Executive Officer, you will be entitled to a Special
Bonus of $500,000 (five hundred thousand dollars) upon a successful completion
of the transition by December 31, 2004. Payment will be made no later than
January 31, 2005.

4.   LTIP

Your membership of the LTIP IV Plan will continue through the end of 2004 and
will then cease.

5.   RETIREMENT BENEFITS

The Commencement Date for the Retirement Benefits to which you are contractually
entitled (such as, for example, AGCO Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan,
restructured Split dollar Program and S.401K benefits) will be January 1, 2005

   AGCO - AGCO ALLIS - AGCOSTAR - CHALLENGER - FARMHAND - FENDT - FIELDSTAR -
   GLEANER - GLENCOE - HESSTON - LOR*AL MASSEY-FERGUSON - NEW IDEA - ROGATOR -
   SISUDIESEL - SOILTEQ - SPRA-COUPE - SUNFLOWER - TERRAGATOR - TYE - VALTRA -
                    WHITE - WILLMAR AGCO FINANCE - AGCO PARTS

<PAGE>

6.   This letter constitutes termination of the arrangements set out in the
     contract amendment letter of July 23, 2003 effective December 31, 2004.

7.   GOVERNING LAW

The validity, construction and enforcement of this agreement shall be governed
by the laws of the State of Georgia.

Please indicate your acceptance of these terms by signing and returning the
attached copy of this letter.

       /s/ CSD Lupton                             /s/ R.J. Ratliff
----------------------------------               -------------------------------
   (for) Board of Directors                       Robert J. Ratliff
       AGCO Corporation
Order entered September 10, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00314-CV

IN RE SCOTT PELLEY, P.C., SCOTT PELLEY, AND THE PELLEY 

FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Original Proceeding from the 15th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV-11-1026

ORDER

Relators have filed a motion for clarification and enforcement of our August 

31, 2021 order in this case directing the trial court to rule within thirty days on 

Relators’ Request for Order to Return $400,000 Deposit in Lieu of Bond 

Wrongfully Distributed by the District Clerk and Motion for Entry of Amended 

Judgment for Damages (the motion). Relators inform us that the trial court has 

indicated there will be an evidentiary hearing on the motion and the court will hear 

evidence from both sides concerning the motion. Relators state that our order did 

not remand the case to the trial court for additional evidence but only ordered the 

trial court to rule on the motion. Relators ask that we order the trial judge not to 

conduct any further evidentiary hearings in this matter.

The motion was not on appeal but remained before the trial court while 

Relators sought a petition for writ of mandamus. The trial court has yet to rule on 

the motion, so it has remained pending before the trial court since Relators filed it 

nearly two years ago on October 25, 2019. Just as this Court declines to instruct 

the trial court on how to rule on the motion, we also decline to instruct the trial 
court on what hearings it may conduct and what evidence it may consider in 

reaching that ruling. Such matters are within the discretion of the trial court.

Accordingly, Relators’ motion for clarification and enforcement seeking an 

order instructing the trial court not to conduct further evidentiary hearings is 

DENIED.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v. 

CIRINO GONZALEZ, 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket no. 07-CR-189-GZS 

ORDER ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW 

On September 23, 2008, this Court held a hearing on the Motion to Withdraw (Docket #519) 

filed by Attorney Bownes. Prior to the hearing, the Court had also received and reviewed a 

supplemental sealed statement in support of the Motion (Docket # 526) and a handwritten letter 

from Mr. Gonzalez (Docket # 520). After excluding the Government’s Attorney from the 

courtroom, the Court heard from both Attorney Bownes and Mr. Gonzalez regarding their reasons 

for seeking withdrawal. Ultimately, the Motion was WITHDRAWN on the record. 

Despite the withdrawal, the Court notes that having heard from Defendant and reviewed all 

of the related written submissions, the Court does not believe that there is any basis for allowing 

Attorney Bownes to withdraw at this time. In the Court’s view, the request to withdraw was 

untimely given the upcoming sentencing hearing. Also, there is not a total lack of communication 

between attorney and client. Rather, in the Court’s assessment, although Mr. Gonzalez and 

Attorney Bownes appear to have some continuing disagreement regarding trial strategy and various 

pretrial matters, there was no suggestion that they are unable to communicate or fundamentally 

disagree with respect to sentencing issues. The sentencing in this matter is scheduled for this 

Friday, September 26, 2008. Given Attorney Bownes’ familiarity with the case and the Court’s 

assessment of his representation at trial and at the presentence conference, the Court is convinced 

that Attorney Bownes remains a knowledgeable advocate for Mr. Gonzalez. In short, given the 

totality of the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that there is no basis for allowing withdrawal or 

replacing Attorney Bownes at this stage of the proceedings. 

SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ George Z. Singal 

 Chief U.S. District Judge 

Dated this 23rd day of September, 2008. 

Case 1:07-cr-00189-GZS Document 530 Filed 09/23/08 Page 1 of 1
1The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska, sitting by designation.

2The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, Chief United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3551

___________

Douglas J. Sample, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

*

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

*

Kenneth Apfel, Acting Commissioner * [UNPUBLISHED]

of Social Security Administration, *

*

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 20, 1999

Filed: May 7, 1999

___________

Before BEAM and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and KOPF,1 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Douglas Sample appeals from the district court’s2 order affirming the

Commissioner’s decision denying him supplemental security income under Title XVI
-2-

of the Social Security Act. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’

briefs, we conclude that the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial

evidence on the record as a whole and that Sample is not entitled to supplemental

security income. Because an extended opinion would serve no useful purpose in this

fact-intensive case, we affirm the decision of the district court without further

discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy. 

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Carlo Alberto Sisto, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of CNH Equipment Trust 2018-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.                                      Based on my knowledge, 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 statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                                      Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, 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.                                      I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, 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 related attestation 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 as an 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: Citibank, N.A.

 

March 23, 2020

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Carlo Alberto Sisto                                            |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Carlo Alberto Sisto                                                |
|   | Title: | President (senior   officer in charge of the servicing   function) |

 

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS DATED NOVEMBER 25, 1996
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-25-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-26-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-25-1996
<CASH>                                       4,809,950
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,966,507
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                  9,813,699
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,796,127
<PP&E>                                       2,383,987
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,123,562
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,610,552
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,537,188
<BONDS>                                      1,016,424
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,500
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,011,440
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,610,552
<SALES>                                     21,534,778
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,534,778
<CGS>                                       13,971,503
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,385,143
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             395,651
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                782,481
<INCOME-TAX>                                   270,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            512,481
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   512,481
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Note. The data presented in this table are available in the monthly statistical release ‘‘U.S. 2. Marketable U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds and nonmarketable U.S. Treasury 

Reserve Assets; Foreign Official Assets Held at Federal Reserve Banks,’’ on the Board’s web securities, in each case measured at face (not market) value. 

site at: www. federalreserve.gov/releases. 3. Held in foreign and international accounts and valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce; not 

1. Excludes deposits and U.S. Treasury securities held for international and regional included in the gold stock of the United States. organizations.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           5,922
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  124,965
<ALLOWANCES>                                       725
<INVENTORY>                                     76,613
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               208,882
<PP&E>                                          47,987
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,307
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 376,116
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,266
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     124,815
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   376,116
<SALES>                                        205,938
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               205,938
<CGS>                                          157,988
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,392
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (138)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,419
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,277
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,771
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,506
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,506
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Resource Management Company

v. Civil No. 06-cv-366-JD

Janet Peschong, Personal

Representative for the 

Estate of Frank Gregory, Deceased

O R D E R

Before the court for consideration is plaintiff’s Motion for

Final Default. It may be that plaintiff can ultimately prove

that decedent was dishonest and acted fraudulently. However, he

misperceives the role of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Sanctions,

particularly the extreme sanction of default is simply not an

alternative to trial or Rule 56. When discovery is requested and

it is ordered produced, if the producing party no longer has it

to produce and says so under oath, the necessity of resort to a

subpoena to third parties to obtain the discovery does not

automatically entitle movant to Rule 37 default. 

Plaintiff has satisfied me that decedent was either not a

competent record keeper or he was not truthful. However, the

evidence is simply not sufficient for me to find the latter. 

Plaintiff is not entitled to Rule 37 sanctions and his motion

(Document no. 119) is denied.

Case 1:06-cv-00366-JD Document 131 Filed 03/04/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 4, 2008

cc: Benjamin C. Riggs, Jr., pro se

 Peter G. Callaghan, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00366-JD Document 131 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2


                    Certification of Chief Financial Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

C.W. Gilluly, Chief Financial Officer of AMASYS Corporation (the "Company")
certifies in his capacity as an officer of the Company that he has reviewed the
Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for quarter ended September 30, 2003 and
that to the best of his or her knowledge:

     1.   the report fully complies with the  requirements of Sections 13(a) and
          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.

The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States code, as amended by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

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



November 14, 2003                            /s/ C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.
                                             Principal Finance Officer
                                             (Chief Financial Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-46-01-SM

Rayner Herrera

O R D E R

Defendant Herrera’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 10). Trial has been rescheduled for the September 

2006 trial period. Defendant Herrera shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than June 20, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall

be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: August 30, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: September 6, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00046-SM Document 11 Filed 06/13/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

June 13, 2006

cc: R. Brian Snow, Esq.

Alfred Rubega, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00046-SM Document 11 Filed 06/13/06 Page 2 of 2
199 La. 269

#### STATE v. HAYES et al.

Nos. 36458, 36460.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 5, 1942.

Clay & Kohlman, of New Orleans, for relator.

Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Dist. Atty., of Amite, for respondents.

FOURNET, Justice.

The object of these two applications for writs was to compel the district judge to grant the relator a preliminary hearing on charges by affidavits of slander and conspiracy to destroy public records, no indictment or information having been returned against him thereon, to determine whether or not there was any merit to the charges pending against him. It now appearing that this question has become moot for the reason, as pointed out in the district Judge’s response to the rules nisi issued by us, that the affidavits in these two instances have been withdrawn, the relator discharged, and his appearance bonds cancelled, the rules nisi issued are recalled and the relator’s applications for writs dismissed.
#### Jane Browdame, Appellant, v Lewis J. Candura et al., Respondents.

[807 NYS2d 658]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurkin-Torres, J.), dated August 19, 2004, which granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against each of them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motions are denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

*748The defendants failed to establish prima facie that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Accordingly, their motions should have been denied (see *Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]) without consideration of the plaintiffs opposition (see *Sequeira v W&E Auto Repair, Inc.,*17 AD3d 442, 443 [2005]; *Aronov v Leybovich,*3 AD3d 511, 512 [2004]; *Junco v Ranzi,*288 AD2d 440 [2001]).

The report submitted by the defendant Lewis J. Candura’s expert orthopedist, adopted by the defendant Danny Perez, failed to specify the degree of range of motion in the plaintiffs cervical spine in support of his conclusion that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury. With respect to his examination of the plaintiffs lumbosacral spine, in those instances where he assigned a numerical value to the range of motion, the orthopedist failed to compare his findings against the range of normal. The report submitted by the defendant Lewis J. Candura’s expert neurologist, adopted by the defendant Danny Perez, was also lacking. Accordingly, the “defendants’ proof failed to objectively demonstrate that the plaintiff did not suffer a permanent consequential or significant limitation of use of his [lumbosacral] cervical spinets] as a result of the subject accident” *(Aronov v Leybovich, supra*at 512; *see Baudilio v Pam Car & Truck Rental, Inc.,*23 AD3d 420 [2005]; *Minlionica v Shahabi,*296 AD2d 569, 570 [2002]). Moreover, after having acknowledged, at least in part, the findings contained in the reports of the plaintiff’s magnetic resonance imaging scans documenting disc herniation, the defendants’ expert physicians failed to examine the scans and did not allege that the disc herniations were not causally related to the accident *(see Zavala v DeSantis,*1 AD3d 354, 355 [2003]; *Black*v *Robinson,*305 AD2d 438, 439 [2003]). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.