alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
      10.43





**AMENDMENT
      NO. ______**





**TO
      EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**





This
      Amendment to Employment Agreement is made as of March 19, 2008, by and between
      El Pollo Loco, Inc. (the “Company”) and______________________  (the
      “Executive”). This Amendment amends, effective as of the date hereof, the
      Employment Agreement dated as of _______________________  ,
      between
      the Company and the Executive.





1. The
        first
        paragraph of Exhibit A to the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to read
        in
        full as follows:





“Bonuses
      for any calendar year will be established by reference to budgeted “EBITDA” for
      such calendar year (“Budgeted EBITDA”), with EBITDA having the same definition
      as set forth in the Administrative Guidelines relating to the El Pollo Loco
      Incentive Plan for such calendar year. Budgeted EBITDA will be established
      by
      the Company’s Board of Directors (following annual plan reviews with the
      Company’s management) within the first three months of each calendar year during
      the Employment Term.”





2. Except
        as
        set forth set herein, all terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement
        shall
        remain in full force and effect.





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


EL
              POLLO LOCO,
              INC.By:Name:Title[Executive]
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 408 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        April 23, 1998.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1252) to modify the procedures of the Federal courts in certain 
matters, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to 
comply with section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. 
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be 
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute 
rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
the Judiciary now printed in the bill, modified by striking section 9 (and 
redesignating succeeding sections accordingly). Each section of that amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Points of order 
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with 
clause 7 of rule XVI or section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
are waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of 
rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting 
on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without 
intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on 
the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of 
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of 
the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
order as original text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Salathiel Burries *v.*Samuel Agnew.

Fences — Joining—Notice.

If it should be concluded that the gate stood on appellant’s land, still by bis permitting appellee to join bis fence to tbe gate and thereby enclose bis land, be could not legally enter and remove tbe gate without reasonable notice to tbe appellee.

APPEAL PROM LEWIS CIRCUIT COURT.

March 6, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

This is an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, and which the evidence conduces to the 'conclusion that the gate which appellant removed was on his land, it is also shown that the parties had by mutual consent made, or permitted a lane to remain, which had been previously made between their two tracts of land, and had at the end of the land next the Ohio- River erected a gate, and by permission appéllee had joined his fence up to the gate so as to *11inclose his land, and protect it thereby from .the intrusion of stock.

*Ireland, for appellant.*

*Phister, Thomas, for appellee.*

If, then, it be concluded that the locus in quo be the freehold of appellant still by his permitting appellee to' join his fence to the gate and thereby inclose his land, he could not legally enter and remove the gate without reasonable notice to the appellee that he would acquiesce no longer.

*Shewn v. Withers,*12 B. M. 441.

Appellants might have pleaded not guilty and also liberum ten-ementum. The first section, or paragraph of the answer could scarcely be regarded as a plea of not guilty — and under the second paragraph he had all the benefit of a plea of liberum tenementum. He was not therefore prejudiced by the ruling of the court in regard to the answer, the instructions of the court given for appellee conforms to our view of the law of the case and w'ere properly given and the one asked for by appellant properly refused.

Wherefore the judgment must be affirmed.
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1




August 23, 2005




Mr. Grant Lyon





Re: Amendment to Employment Agreement



Dear Grant:



Upon execution by you, this letter will constitute the first amendment to that employment agreement
dated March 21, 2005 between Hypercom Corporation (the “Company”) and you (the “Agreement”) (this
amendment, the “Amendment”).




1. Paragraph 1 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:





“1. Term. This Agreement will be effective as of March 22, 2005 and will
terminate on November 22, 2005, unless mutually extended by the parties in writing.”


2. Unless otherwise superseded by this Amendment, the terms of the Agreement will remain in full
force and effect until the expiration of this Amendment.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Sincerely,

 	 
	 	/s/ William Keiper
 	 
	 	William Keiper 	 
	 	Chairman and Interim Chief
Executive Officer	 
	 



ACCEPTED:




/s/ Grant Lyon

Grant Lyon




Date: August 23, 2005
#### Lyons *vs.*The Third Avenue Railroad Company.

Section 121 of the Code, which provides that “after a verdict shall he rendered! in any action for a wrong, such action shall not abate by the death of any party,” covers the case of a verdict for the plaintiff in an action to recover damages for injuries sustained through the negligence of the defendant’s, servants. Hence, it being unnecessary for the protection of the plaintiff’ that judgment should be entered, although his health be precarious, an . order staying his proceedings will not be so modified as to permit Mm to enter judgment.

(Before Jones, J., at Special Term,

December, 1867.)

This is an application so to modify an order staying- the plaintiff’s proceedings as to permit the plaintiff to enter judgment.

The action has been tried, and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant, desiring to move at a special term for a new trial, has from time to time obtained orders staying the plaintiff’s proceedings, the last of which is the one for the modification whereof this' application is made. A case has been prepared and served,, and amendments thereto served, and notice of settlement, given.

Jones, J.

The modification is asked for on two grounds, 1st. The defendant is only seeking for delay. 2d. That the plaintiff's health is very precarious, and if he should die before judgment entered, the action would abate.

The first ground was not seriously pressed, and indeed cannot be maintained. The second ground is covered by ■that portion of section 121 of the Code, which provides:

4‘After a verdict shall be rendered in any action for a wrong, such action shall not abate by the death of any party/’ &e.

This action was brought to recover damages for injuries *606sustained by the plaintiff through the negligence of the defendant’s servants in starting one of their cars while the plaintiff was in the act of getting off'.

The section above referred to covers this cause of • action,'and of course it is unnecessary for the protection of the plaintiff that judgment should be entered; while, on the other hand, under, the practice of this court, if judgment is entered, it will be a bar to the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Motion denied, without costs.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel, are you 

a 

 Federal Defender

 CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this Court’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 U.S.C.§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on 

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 19-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:249
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 21-859V

UNPUBLISHED

ALEXIS LAINEZ and CESAR 

MONTOYA,

 Petitioners,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: May 25, 2021

Voluntary dismissal; Order 

concluding proceedings

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS1

On February 1, 2021, Alexis Lainez and Cesar Montoya filed a petition for 

compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §

300aa—10 through 34.

2 Petitioners alleged that their minor child died due to various 

vaccinations that the child received on December 11, 2020. ECF no. 1. On May 20, 

2021, Petitioners filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.3

In light of Petitioners’ “notice of dismissal at any time before service of 

respondent’s report” pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a)(1)(A), this case is dismissed 

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

1 Although I have not formally designated this Order for publication, I am required to post it on the United 

States Court of Federal Claims' website because it contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this 

case, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal 

Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Order will be available 

to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, 

I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755.

3 The May 7, 2021 order required the apparent Petitioners, Alexis Lainez and Cesar Montoya, to file 

“Proof of Authority to File in a Representative Capacity” to comply with Vaccine Rule 2(c)(2)(C). The 

apparent Petitioners did not file any probate documents to establish who has been appointed as the 

executor(s) or personal representative(s) of the minor child’s estate. Thus, it remains unclear whether 

Alexis Lainez and Cesar Montoya had the authority to file this case on behalf of their minor child.
EXHIBIT 35.4

GE DEALER FLOORPLAN MASTER NOTE TRUST

                                                            Date: March 14, 2007

      Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as agent ("Agent") for Wilmington
Trust Company, not in its individual capacity but solely as indenture trustee
(the "Indenture Trustee"), certifies to CDF Funding, Inc. (the "Transferor"),
its officers and GE Dealer Floorplan Master Note Trust (the "Issuer"), with the
knowledge and intent that they will rely upon this certification, that:

      (1) It has reviewed the report on assessment of the Agent's compliance
provided in accordance with Rules 13a-18 under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Securities Exchange Act") and Item 1122 of Regulation AB
(the "Servicing Assessment") and the registered public accounting firm's
attestation report provided in accordance with Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 under the
Securities Exchange Act and Section 1122(b) of Regulation AB (the "Attestation
Report") that were delivered by the Agent to the Transferor pursuant to the
Master Indenture dated as of August 12, 2004 (as amended, supplemented or
otherwise modified from time to time the "Master Indenture"), by and between the
Issuer and the Indenture Trustee (collectively, the "Agent Information" (in
making such statement, the Agent makes no representation or warranty as to any
information prepared or provided to it by a third person and upon which it
relied in preparing our information;

      (2) To the best of its knowledge, the Agent Information, taken as a whole,
does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in the light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period of time covered by the Agent Information; and

      (3) To the best of its knowledge, all of the Agent Information required to
be provided by the Agent under the Master Indenture has been provided to the
Transferor.


                                                DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY
                                                AMERICAS, as Agent


                                                By: /s/ Jenna Kaufman
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                Name: Jenna Kaufman
                                                Title: Director


                                                By: /s/ Louis Bodi
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                Name: Louis Bodi
                                                Title: Vice President
7/12/2020 https://courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/FindDock.aspx?NCase=2020-L-006904&SearchType=0&Database=2&case_no=&PLtype=1&...

https://courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/FindDock.aspx?NCase=2020-L-006904&SearchType=0&Database=2&case_no=&PLtype=1&... 1/2

Case Information Summary for Case Number

2020-L-006904

Filing Date: 06/29/2020 Case Type: CONTRACT

Division: Law Division District: First Municipal

Ad Damnum: $0.00 Calendar: U

Party Information

Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s)

NORWEGIAN AIR

SHUTTLE ASA

DICELLO LEVITT &

CASEY LL

10 N DEARBORN ST

CHICAGO IL, 60602

(312) 214-7900

ARCTIC AVIATION

ASSETS DA

Defendant(s) Defendant Date of Service Attorney(s)

BOEING COMMERCIAL

AVIATIO

THE BOEING COMPANY

Case Activity

Activity Date: 06/29/2020 Participant: NORWEGIAN AIR SHUTTLE ASA

CONTRACT COMPLAINT FILED (JURY DEMAND)

Court Fee: 600.50

Attorney: DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY

LL

Activity Date: 06/29/2020 Participant: NORWEGIAN AIR SHUTTLE ASA

SUMMONS ISSUED AND RETURNABLE

Attorney: DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY

LL

Activity Date: 06/29/2020 Participant: NORWEGIAN AIR SHUTTLE ASA

SUMMONS ISSUED AND RETURNABLE

Attorney: DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY

Case: 1:20-cv-04108 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 07/13/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:92
7/12/2020 https://courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/FindDock.aspx?NCase=2020-L-006904&SearchType=0&Database=2&case_no=&PLtype=1&...

https://courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/FindDock.aspx?NCase=2020-L-006904&SearchType=0&Database=2&case_no=&PLtype=1&... 2/2

LL

Activity Date: 06/29/2020 Participant: NORWEGIAN AIR SHUTTLE ASA

CASE SET ON STATUS CALL

Date: 10/29/2020

Court Time: 0930

Judge: OTTO, MICHAEL F.

Activity Date: 06/29/2020 Participant: NORWEGIAN AIR SHUTTLE ASA

CASE SET ON INDIVIDUAL CALENDAR

Back to Top

Please note: Neither the Circuit Court of Cook County nor the Clerk of the 

Circuit Court of Cook County warrants the accuracy, completeness, or the currency 

of this data. This data is not an official record of the Court or the Clerk and may 

not be represented as an official court record.

If data does not appear in a specific field, we likely do not have the responsive data 

in our master database. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04108 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 07/13/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:93
#### Ellen Darling *v.*Wm. W. Darling.

Divorce — Abandonment.

The acts of a husband were held not to amount to an abandonment of his wife, in view of the circumstances of (his absence.

APPEAL PROM CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT.

April 23, 1873.

*Cox, Deane, for appellant.*

*Masterson, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

The promises which appellant exacted of appellee immediately preceding their marriage show that she approached the hymeneal altar “in doublings and in fears,” and although he lingered too long in the neighborhood after she returned to her father’s, and seemed reluctant to leave for that distant land to which by their ante-nuptial agreement he was to go in search of a'fortune which was to secure her ease and comfort, still when he did go his absence can not be construed into an abandonment of appellant, and furnish grounds for dissolving the marriage relations between them, at least until after the expiration of the time when he was to- return.

Appellant voluntarily left her father’s house and entered into the most responsible and' solemn relations which pertain to this- life, under circumstances, as her own conduct shows-, which caused in her own mind great doubts, if not alarm, as to’ the results to herself, and if the disasters have followed which she at the time had just cause to fear, she must await the period which the law in its benignity has fixed, when she may be relieved, which has not yet arrived.

The judgment must be *affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 397 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 42
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 397

                          [Report No. 108-27]

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 2003

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

                             March 19, 2003

              Reported by Mr. Domenici, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction 
          of a hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
              PROJECT.

     Notwithstanding the time period specified in section 13 of the 
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project numbered 11214, the 
Commission may, at the request of the licensee for the project, and 
after reasonable notice, in accordance with the good faith, due 
diligence, and public interest requirements of that section and the 
Commission's procedures under that section--
            (1) reinstate the license for the construction of the 
        project as of the effective date of the surrender of the 
        license; and
            (2) extend the time period during which the licensee is 
        required to commence the construction of the project for 3 
        consecutive 2-year periods beyond the date that is 4 years 
        after the date of issuance of the license.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 11, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.

                                                        Calendar No. 42

108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 397

                          [Report No. 108-27]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction 
          of a hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 19, 2003

                       Reported without amendment
```