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



EXHIBIT 99.1
 CALCULATION OF THE MAXIMUM NOTES BALANCE AT MARCH 31, 2005
UNDER THE SENIOR SECURED NOTES FACILITY DATED JANUARY 13, 2005
 I. Lesser of:A. the product of:1. the Free Cash Flow Multiple
    
    
    9.5xMultiplied by2. Services Business Free Cash Flow
    
    $
    5,481$
    52,070OrB. the product of:x. 2.0 times
    
    
    2.0xmultiplied byy. Services Business Revenue
    
    $
    16,595$
    33,191II. Lesser of1. 50% of the results of the immediately preceding clause (I)
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    16,595Or2. 30% of the Companys After-tax PV10
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    7,114III. 10% of the Companys After-tax PV10
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    2,371Maximum Notes Balance = (I) + (II) + (III)
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    42,676Aggregate Notes Outstanding at Determination Date
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    30,000Companys After-tax PV10 as of 12/31/04
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    23,712Services Business Revenue {Section 2(a)(xxxx)}
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    16,595Services Business operating income
    
    $
    4,106Services Business depreciation and amortization expense
    
    
    1,375Less: Any net operating income from affiliates
    
    
    (A) Services Business net operating income before interest,
taxes,
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    5,481(B) Aggregate interest paid on permitted indebtedness
    
    
    
    
    
    
    340Services Business capital expenditures
    
    $
    3,224Less: Issuances of stock by Infinity, less costs
    
    
    (9,265
    )0Less: Aggregate interest expense
    
    
    (340
    )Services Business capital expenditures, not funded
    
    
    (340
    )
    
    
    (340
    )Services Free Cash Flow {Section 2(a)(xxxix)}
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    5,481
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,126
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,505
<ALLOWANCES>                                       116
<INVENTORY>                                      2,711
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,504
<PP&E>                                           6,353
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,764
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,538
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,606
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,663
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,264
<SALES>                                         13,314
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,314
<CGS>                                           11,126
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,432
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (510)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 535
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (269)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        17
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (286)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        

</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANDRA VIOLETA RAMIREZ

MAZARIEGOS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70543

Agency No. A070-956-004

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 6, 2012** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. 

Sandra Violeta Ramirez Mazariegos, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision

denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §1252. We

FILED

MAR 13 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-70543

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and we review de

novo claims of ineffective assistance in immigration proceedings, Mohammed v.

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We grant the petition for review

and remand. 

The BIA abused its discretion when it denied Mazariegos’s motion to reopen

for failure to establish prejudice, because Mazariegos presented a plausible claim

for relief, and her notary’s failure to file a brief to the BIA may have affected the

outcome of her removal proceedings. See Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d 879, 887 (9th

Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus GAMA-REYNOSO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-20603

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 6, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Joe A. Salinas, III, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Jesus Gama-Reynoso, Big Spring, TX, pro se.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jesus Gama-Reynoso (Gama), appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States. For the first time on appeal, Gama contends that, in light of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the district court committed reversible error by sentencing him under mandatory Sentencing Guidelines.

*451This claim is reviewed only for plain error. *See United States v. Martinez-Lugo,*411 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 464, 163 L.Ed.2d 352 (2005). Gama has shown that the district court clearly erred by sentencing him under a mandatory guidelines system. *See id.*at 600; *Booker,*125 S.Ct. at 756-57. Because the court’s remarks about the sentence are equivocal, Gama has not, however, shown that the error affected his substantial rights.

As the Government correctly notes, a sentencing judge’s comment that the guidelines sentence is “harsh” does not alone establish that the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights, nor does a sentence at the bottom of the guideline range. *See United States v. Bringier,*405 F.3d 310, 317 & n. 2 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 264, 163 L.Ed.2d 238 (2005). In *Bringier,*the sentencing court “did not lament over the sentence he imposed, nor did he state that the sentence is *‘more*than appropriate’ or *‘too*severe.’ Instead, he merely acknowledged the sentence was harsh.” *Bringier,*405 F.3d at 318 (emphasis in original). Here, the court used the term, “somewhat harsh”, but she also noted that “a sentence at the low end of the applicable guideline range is sufficient in this case to meet the sentencing objectives of punishment, deterrence and incapacitation.” We are not persuaded that the district court’s remarks suggest that it may have imposed a lesser sentence under advisory Guidelines. *See United States v. Taylor,*409 F.3d 675, 677 (5th Cir.2005).

Gama’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### A. L. SMITH IRON CO. v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD CO., and The Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford.

Civ. A. 54-590.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

Jan. 24, 1956.

Henry N. Silk, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

John A. Briggs, Boston, Mass., for defendant, N.Y., N.H. & H. R.R.

William F. Callahan, Boston, Mass., for Auto Ins. Co. of Hartford.

ALDRICH, District Judge.

The plaintiff seeks to recover against two defendants because of damage to certain goods in transit, or otherwise. The defendant railroad it sues as a common carrier. The defendant insurance company it sues under an indemnity policy. The two claims, while contained in one complaint, are separately asserted as separate causes of action. The defendant insurance company has filed interrogatories addressed to the defendant railroad, which it contends are properly framed under Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 33, 28 U.S.C.A. because, as between themselves, the two defendants are “adverse parties.” It may well be that the interests of the two defendants are adverse, one to the other, since if the plaintiff recovers against both and the insurance company has to satisfy the execution, it may become subrogated to the plaintiff’s rights, and may recover over against the railroad, while it would not be if the railroad is not found liable. I think it clear, however, that they are not adverse parties within the meaning of the Rule. I doubt whether two defendants sued for essentially the same cause of action, either as joint or several tort-feasors, or for damage alternatively caused by one or the other, are adverse parties under Rule 33, for reasons set forth in Cooke v. Kilgore Mfg. Co., D.C.N.D.Ohio, 15 F.R.D. 465. In the case at bar there are additional grounds for reaching this result. The insurance company’s adverse interest as against the railroad is not a primary one, but only secondary, through’the plaintiff, by virtue of possible future subrogation rights. At the argument I asked plaintiff if it were willing to have these interrogatories stand as its own, and it declined.

For the purpose of Rule 33 the adversity of the parties must be determined on the pleadings. It is significant in this regard that at the time it answered the complaint the insurance company declined to answer any of the paragraphs relating to the cause of action against *390the railroad' ón the ground that it was not a party thereto. I do not believe it became a party for the purpose of interrogatories, either by the fortuitous circumstance that the two causes of action have been joined in a single complaint, or by the fact that it hopes the plaintiff recovers in this other action.

The railroad’s motion to strike the interrogatories addressed to it by the other defendant is allowed.
##### 



Exhibit 10.54

April 4, 2002

Mr. Dennis Trausch
Sport Chalet, Inc.
920 Foothill Blvd.
La Canada, California 91011

Dear Dennis:

This letter will serve as an amendment to your current employment contract
dated October 1, 1999.

The Agreement is hereby amended as follows:



|Paragraph 2.1 (i) |  | necessary or advisable to manage and conduct the
business of Employer as it relates to store selection and
store leasing, including facilities management.                                                                                               
|----------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                 
|Paragraph 3.1     |  | Compensation: As compensation for the services to be
performed hereunder, Executive shall receive a salary in
the amount of One Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars
($155,000) per annum. Payable in bi-weekly equal
installments effective April 29, 2002.

Please retain this letter in your files with your employment contract.

|                                             |  |                                                           
|-------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ CRAIG LEVRA
Craig Levra
Chairman and CEO |  | /s/ DENNIS TRAUSCH
Dennis Trausch
Executive Vice President
|                                            
|4/15/02
Date                                 |  | 4/15/02
Date                                              

Note: The change in salary does not impact any other benefits currently
provided for in the current employment contract.

E-5
#### Sheri Gellman et al., Respondents, v Eleni Henkel et al., Appellants.

[976 NYS2d 375]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J Fried, J), entered February 10, 2012, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the counterclaims, brought pursuant to CELR 3211 (a) (5), to the extent of dismissing defendants’ first, second, third, and fourth counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action arising out of defendant’s prior employment with plaintiff SGG Fartners Inc. (SGG), defendants’ first four counterclaims, in which defendant Henkel alleges that plaintiffs failed to compensate her under certain oral agreements, are barred by the doctrine of res judicata since there is a judgment on the merits from a prior action between the same parties involving the same subject matter *(see Henkel v Gellman and*
      *464
      *SGG Partners, LLC,*Sup Ct, NY County, May 18, 2011, Fried, J., index No. 652411/10). Contrary to defendants’ argument, the fact that some of the theories asserted in this action differ from the theories asserted in the first action is of no moment, since the claims arise out of the same transaction *(see Matter of Hunter, 4*NY3d 260, 269 [2005]). Since defendant Henkel concedes that her performance at SGG was completed during the prior action, and that she resigned from SGG prior to the disposition of that action, she could have raised the issue for breach of the alleged profit-sharing agreement in the prior action.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.
Exhibit 10.1


 





FIRST
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), is entered into as of April 11, 2022, by and
between Greenwave Technology Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”), and Danny Meeks (the “Employee”,
and together with the Company, the “Parties”, and each, a “Party”).


 


R
E C I T A L S


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties entered into that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of September 30, 2021 (as so amended, the “Employment
Agreement”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Company has determined the Employee has routinely exceeded key performance metrics in his area of operations.


 


WHERAS,
the Parties desire to amend the Employment Agreement to increase the compensation awarded to the Employee as set forth herein.


 


WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 17 of the Employment Agreement, the amendment contemplated by the Parties must be contained in writing.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:


 


1.
Amendment to Section 5. Section 5 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by inserting at the end of Section 5(d) the following
new Section 5(e):


 


“(e)
Quarterly Bonus. The Executive shall receive a quarterly bonus of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) paid by the last
day of every quarter in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll practices. The Company may make such deductions, withholdings,
or payments from sums payable to the Executive hereunder which are required by law for taxes and similar charges.”


 


2.
No Other Amendments. Unless expressly amended by this Amendment, the terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect.


 


3.
Conflicting Terms. Wherever the terms and conditions of this Amendment and the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement
are in conflict, the terms of this Amendment shall be deemed to supersede the conflicting terms of the Employment Agreement.


 


4.
Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of Colorado
without regard to the choice of law principles thereof.


 


5.
Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts and, if executed in more than one counterpart, the executed
counterparts shall each be deemed to be an original and all such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.


 


	 	THE COMPANY:
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Howard Jordan 
	 	Name:	Howard
    Jordan
	 	Title:	Chief
    Financial Officer
	 	 	 
	 	THE EMPLOYEE:
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Danny Meeks
	 	Name:	Danny
    Meeks
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3136 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3136

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and increase the 
exclusion for benefits provided to volunteer firefighters and emergency 
                          medical responders.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 18, 2010

 Mr. Dodd (for himself and Ms. Collins) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and increase the 
exclusion for benefits provided to volunteer firefighters and emergency 
                          medical responders.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Volunteer Responder Incentive 
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. BENEFITS PROVIDED TO VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY 
              MEDICAL RESPONDERS.

    (a) Increase in Dollar Limitation on Qualified Payments.--
Subparagraph (B) of section 139B(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``$30'' and inserting ``$50''.
    (b) Extension.--Subsection (d) of section 139B of such Code is 
amended by striking ``December 31, 2010'' and inserting ``December 31, 
2013''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 10.21


                                   ADDENDUM TO
                       LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT


         This Addendum is entered into as of 8:00 a.m., C.D.T., on July 23,
1998, by Cenex Harvest States Cooperatives ("CHS"), a Minnesota cooperative
corporation, and Farmland Industries, Inc. ("Farmland"), a Kansas cooperative
corporation. CHS and Farmland are collectively referred to in this Addendum as
the "Members".

                                    RECITALS

         A. CHS and Farmland are Members of Country Energy, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (the "Company"), pursuant to a Limited Liability
Agreement dated June 29, 1998 (the "LLC Agreement"). All capitalized terms not
defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the LLC
Agreement.

         B. The Members desire to amend the provisions of Sections 2.6 and
2.10(a) of Article II of the LLC Agreement.

         In consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants and promises
contained herein, the Members agree as follows:

         1. Sections 2.6 and 2.10(a) of Article II of the LLC Agreement are
         hereby amended in their entirety to read as follows:

                  2.6 Agreement to Finalize Certain Operative Documents. The
         Members recognize that certain Exhibits (and certain Schedules attached
         to such Exhibits), which consist of certain Operative Agreements, have
         not been agreed upon as of the date hereof. The Members agree to
         negotiate and work together in good faith to finalize such Operative
         Agreements in accordance with the understandings of the Members as of
         the date hereof. When the Members and the Company reach agreement with
         respect to the terms of all of the Operative Agreements, the Members
         and the Company shall execute such agreements and attach such
         agreements as Exhibits to this Agreement.

                  2.10 Business Plan.

                           (a) The Members agree to work together in good faith
                  to adopt a Business Plan as soon as possible covering the
                  three fiscal years commencing on September 1, 1998 (the
                  "Initial Business Plan").

         2. In all other respects, the LLC Agreement, as amended hereby, is
         confirmed by the Members.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the
date first above written.


CENEX HARVEST STATES COOPERATIVES           FARMLAND INDUSTRIES, INC.

By: /s/ Noel K. Estenson                    By: /s/ Robert W. Honse
   ----------------------------------          ---------------------------------
Name: Noel K. Estenson                      Name: Robert W. Honse
Title: Chief Executive Officer              Title: Executive Vice President