alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.16




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") to that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of October 31, 2007 (the "Agreement") between Notify Technology Corporation (the "Company") and Paul DePond (the "Employee"), is made as of December 17, 2008.

In consideration of good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Employee agree as follows:

1.

Section 3(a) of the Agreement shall be amended and restated so that it reads in its entirety as follows:

“Base Compensation.  The Company shall pay the Employee as compensation for services a base salary at an annualized rate of $ 275,000.  Such salary shall be reviewed at least annually and shall be increased from time to time subject to accomplishment of such performance and contribution goals and objectives as may be established from time to time by the Board.  Such salary shall be paid periodically in accordance with normal Company payroll.  The annual compensation specified in this Section 3(a), together with any increases in such compensation that the Board may grant from time to time, is referred to in this Agreement as “Base Compensation”.

2.

Other than as modified by this Amendment, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

This Amendment has been executed effective as of the date set forth above.




NOTIFY TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

EMPLOYEE




/s/ Gerald Rice   ____________

/s/ Paul DePond

Gerald W. Rice, Chief Financial Officer

Paul DePond
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ABR INFORMATION SERVICES, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JANUARY 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                      42,347,072
<SECURITIES>                                52,670,130
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,411,493
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           118,387,535
<PP&E>                                      55,206,526
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             271,938,835
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       34,361,732
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       287,442
<OTHER-SE>                                 200,396,944
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               271,938,835
<SALES>                                     54,147,687
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                       29,855,288
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,424,424
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (2,329,683)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,580,688
<INCOME-TAX>                                   980,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,600,688
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.23



 Exhibit 10.23 
 Amendment to Don L. Blankenship’s 
 Special Successor and Development Retention Program

 This Amendment to Don L. Blankenship’s Special Successor and Development Retention Program entered into in or about September, 1998 by and
between Fluor Corporation (the “Company”) and Don L. Blankenship (“Blankenship”) pursuant to which Blankenship is entitled to receive certain Sprigg, West Virginia property described therein by transfer of title to the house,
garages and storage building, etc., free from income tax (the “House” benefit) is entered into on December 23, 2008 and is effective January 1, 2009 and provides as follows: 
 1. The House benefit will not be paid until Blankenship’s separation from service with the Company and its affiliates for purposes of
Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) and, if he is a specified employee for IRC Section 409A purposes (i.e., a key employee of a publicly traded corporation) at the date of his separation from service, the payment
will be delayed for 6 months as required by IRC Section 409A. 
 2. If Blankenship is a specified employee for IRC Section 409A
purposes (i.e., a key employee of a publicly traded corporation) at the date of his separation from service and the payment is delayed for 6 months, then either (i) Blankenship will vacate and not use the property for the 6 month delay period
or (ii) (A) Blankenship will pay to the Company the fair rental value of the property monthly at the beginning of each month in the 6 month delay period and (B) on the first day after the 6 month delay period, the Company will pay to
Blankenship the amount of rent he paid to the Company for the 6 month delay period (the “Rent” benefit) and will gross-up the payment in order to make Blankenship whole for any taxes he incurs in connection with the Rent benefit on the
same basis as the tax gross-up payment for the House benefit. 
 3. The ability of the CEO and Compensation Committee to accelerate payment
of the House benefit is eliminated, if no acceleration is agreed to before January 1, 2009 (provided that payment of the House benefit in connection with any acceleration shall not occur before January 1, 2009). 
 4. The tax gross-up payment needed to make the House benefit and Rent benefit free of income taxes will be made when the taxes are due (by withholding
and/or direct payment by Blankenship, as applicable) but in no event later than the end of the calendar year following the calendar year Blankenship remits the taxes being grossed up to the appropriate governmental authority. 
 5. The foregoing revisions shall not operate to accelerate any payment of the House benefit or any gross-up or other payment into 2008 which would
otherwise be paid after 2008 and shall not operate to defer any payment of the House benefit or any gross-up or other payment to a year later than 2008 which would otherwise be paid in 2008. 
 6. The parties acknowledge that the Company is now Massey Energy Company. 
  

			
	Agreed by:	  	Agreed by:
		
	 /s/ John M. Poma
	  	 /s/ Don L. Blankenship

	For Massey Energy Company	  	Don L. Blankenship
	(formerly Fluor Corporation)	  	
	Title:
#### Linda K. BURNSIDES; Mary M. Sorg; Gary Vyborney, suing on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MJ OPTICAL, INC., a Nebraska Corporation; Optical Illusion, Inc., a Nebraska Corporation; Defendants, COMMERCIAL OPTICAL COMPANY, INC., a Nebraska Corporation; Defendant-Appellee, OPTICAL SERVICES, INC., a Nebraska Corporation; C.O.C., Inc., a Nebraska Corporation; Optical Services, Limited Partnership; Sheldon I. Rips, an Individual, Defendants.

No. 99-2341.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 2001.

Decided Jan. 19, 2001.

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, and FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is the second appeal in this case involving the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2109 (1994). In the first appeal, we reversed the district court’s decision that Commercial Optical Company, Inc. did not violate the WARN Act when Commercial failed to give employees notice of a plant closing. *See Burnsides v. MJ Optical, Inc.,*128 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 1997). We decided that under the Act, the “unforeseeable business circumstances” defense excused Commercial from giving 60-days’ written notice, but instead required Commercial to give as much notice as practicable. *See id.*at 703-04. We stated that under the circumstances, “Commercial had an obligation to notify the employees that they would lose their jobs in two days.” *Id.*at 704. We remanded the case for the district court to calculate damages. *See id.*On remand, the district court awarded damages in the amount of two days’ pay and benefits. The employees appeal arguing the district *613court committed error in finding Commercial could rely on the “unforeseeable business circumstances” defense without giving any written notice to employees, and the district court should have awarded damages for a sixty rather than two-day WARN violation. These arguments ignore our holdings in the first appeal. Having carefully considered the employees’ appeal, we affirm the district court. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10-QSB FOR
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         518,772
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,655
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     73,090
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               612,517
<PP&E>                                          26,953
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,181
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 639,470
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,204
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,400
<COMMON>                                         2,400
<OTHER-SE>                                     633,266
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   639,470
<SALES>                                          5,787
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,494
<CGS>                                            2,293
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               241,837
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,082
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (238,342)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,561
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (238,342)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (215,231)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.001)
        

</TABLE>
1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court of the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-3814

___________ William R. Cody, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Douglas Weber, and others as yet * District Court for the unknown or undetermined, who are or * District of South Dakota. were officers, employees, and/or agents * of SDSP, and/or the State of South * [UNPUBLISHED] Dakota Department of Corrections * (DOC), and/or the State of * South Dakota, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 11, 2001 Filed: June 25, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and KOPF, 1 District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM.2 TheHonorable John B. Jones, United States District Judge for the District of

South Dakota. -2- William R. Cody brought this prisoner civil rights action, alleging numerous claims having to do, inter alia , with the pricing of his pre-stamped envelopes and with retaliationfor his filing of grievances. The District Court 2 denied Cody's motion to amend the complaint and granted defendant Douglas L. Weber's motion for summary judgment. Cody appeals, challenging both of the court's rulings. Having reviewed the case, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Cody's motion to amend. Nor do we find any error in the grant of summary judgment for defendant. AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### The Standard Life & Accident Insurance Company v. The Board of Assessors of the City of Detroit.

*Taxes*— Insurance *companies*— Real-estate *mortgages.*

In computing the taxable property of an insurance .company, organized under the laws of this State, for the purposes of assessment under the tax law of 1891, there should be deducted from its net assets, as determined and shown by the last report of the Commissioner of Insurance, the value of the real-estate mortgages held by the company, and the remainder be determined as the amount of personal property assessable against the company; citing *Common Council v. Board of Assessors,*91 Mich. 78.

*Mandamus.*

Argued May 3, 1892.

Granted May 6,

and opinion filed May 11, 1892.

Belator applied for *mandamus*to compel respondents to deduct from its net assets, as shown by the last report of the Commissioner of Insurance, the value of its real-estate mortgages, and that the remainder be determined as the amount of . its assessable personal property. The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Keena 3 Lightner,*for relator.

*John J. Speed,*for respondents.

Per Curiam.

The relator is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of this State. It has been assessed by the board of assessors of the city of Detroit, on the assessment roll, for city, State, and county taxes for the year 1892, for the value of its net assets, the sum of 8221,352.36. It has filed a written protest with the board, as a hoard of review, and requests that the assess* *518meat against it be credited with the value of the real-estate mortgages held by it. This is refused by the board for the reasons stated in their resolutions set out at large in *Latham v. Board of Assessors, ante,*509. It is shown that the relator holds mortgages to the amount of $204,641.23 upon real estate situate within this State. A list of such mortgages has been furnished to the board of assessors.

The writ is asked to compel the board to deduct from the net assets of the relator, as determined and shown by the last report of the Commissioner of Insurance, the value of the real-estate mortgages held by it, and that the remainder be determined as the amount of personal property assessable against the relator.

Section 4, Act No. 200, Laws of 1891, provides:

> “In computing the taxable property of insurance companies organized under the laws of. this State, the value of the real property on which a company pays taxes shall be deducted from its net assets above liabilities, as determined and shown by the last report of the Commissioner of Insurance, and the remainder shall be the amount of personal property for which the company shall be assessed.^

It is provided by section 2 of the act that, for the purpose of taxation, real property shall include real-estate mortgages.

Clearly, it is the duty of the board of assessors to assess all mortgages as real estate, and to make this deduction, and to assess to the relator the remainder only after such deduction is made. This was expressly held by this Court in *Common Council v. Board of Assessors, ante,*78.

The *mandamus*must issue as prayed.

McGrath, J., did not sit.
#### Todd LEANDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D10-1993.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 6, 2011.

Todd Leander, Tampa, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene C. Hvizd, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

*369PER CURIAM.

In the guise of a motion for clarification of his probation conditions, the appellant attacks his convictions for various counts of computer child exploitation; attempted lewd conduct; transmission of material harmful to minors by electronic device; and promoting sexual performance by a child, charges to which he pled guilty. We affirm the denial of the motion for clarification. Appellant contends that his probation needs clarifying because some of the conditions, such as sexual offender status, would apply only if there were a victim of his crimes, and he claims that there was no ■victim of his crimes. This constitutes an attack on his conviction and must be brought through a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Even if we were to consider the motion for clarification as a motion to correct an illegal sentence, to the extent that he is arguing that there was no factual basis for his guilty plea, rule 3.800(a) motions are not used to resolve factual disputes. *See Krawic v. State,*666 So.2d 599 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

GROSS, C.J., WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, except as disclosed in “Item 15. Controls and Procedures  ̶  A. Disclosure Controls and Procedures” of the Report; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|              | Cresud S.A.C.I.F y A. |                    |
|-------------------|-----------------------|-------------------------|
|              |                  |                    |   |
| November 17, 2015 | By:                   | /s/ Matias Gaivironsky  |   |
|              |                  | Matias Gaivironsky      |   |
|              |                  | Chief Financial Officer |   |
|              |                  |                    |   |

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GENERAL
MEDIA, INC'S SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 FORM 10Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           9,841
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,284
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,371
<PP&E>                                           4,025
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,325
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,000
<BONDS>                                         79,423
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                     (77,467)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,325
<SALES>                                         75,838
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,838
<CGS>                                           39,114
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,805
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   409
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,430
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,455)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,455)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,455)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,742
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,945
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,264
<PP&E>                                         113,752
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 125,683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,744
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           145
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,853
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   125,683
<SALES>                                         14,992
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,277
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,227
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,799
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,697
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (21,628)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (21,628)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (21,628)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.53)



</TABLE>