alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.1







 


 





Amendment No. 2 to


Treppel Loan Agreement


 


WHEREAS, Elite Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Borrower”), and Jerry Treppel, a resident of New Jersey (the “Lender”)
entered into that certain Loan Agreement dated June 12, 2012, as amended on December 5, 2012 (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Lender and Borrower
desire to amend the Agreement and the related Promissory Note to change the maturity date by which the principal amount of the
Credit Line (as defined in the Agreement) is due; and


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7.5
of the Agreement, the Agreement can be amended provided such amendment is in writing and executed by the Lender and the Borrower.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the premises, the mutual provisions contained in the Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy
of which are hereby acknowledged, the Borrower and Lender hereby amend the Credit Line and the related Promissory Note as follows:


 


		1.	The date on which the unpaid principal amount then outstanding plus accrued interest thereon shall
be paid in full is changed from July 31, 2013 to July 31, 2014.



 


		2.	The requirement that the unpaid principal amount then outstanding plus accrued interest thereon
being paid on such date that the Borrower raises at least $2,000,000 in gross proceeds from the sale of any of its equity securities
is hereby removed from the Agreement.



 


		3.	Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the Agreement and the obligations of the Borrower
thereunder, and each of the rights of and benefits to the Borrower thereunder is, and shall continue to be, in full force and effect
and each is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects



 


		4.	This Amendment may be executed in two or more identical counterparts, all of which shall be considered
on and the same agreement and shall become effective when counterparts have been signed by each party and delivered to the other
party. In the event that any signature is delivered by facsimile transmission or by an e-mail which contains a portable document
format (.pdf) file of an executed signature page, such signature page shall create a valid and binding obligation of the party
executing (or on whose behalf such signature is executed) with the same force and effect as if such signature page were an original
thereof.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower and Lender have caused
their respective signature page to this Amendment to be duly executed as of the 2nd day of August, 2013.


 


 


	ELITE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	By:	
        /s/ Nasrat Hakim
	 	
        /s/ Jerry Treppel

	 	Nasrat Hakim, Chief Executive Officer	 	Jerry Treppel
#### John R. Denza et al., Appellants, v Independence Plaza Associates, LLC, et al., Respondents.

Submitted August 20, 2012;

decided October 30, 2012

*1098Motion by New York State Senator Thomas K. Duane et al., insofar as it seeks leave to appear amici curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein, granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appear amici curiae on the appeal herein, dismissed as academic.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60939

Summary Calendar

Sudhir Oli, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A216 264 704

Before Smith, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Sudhir Oli, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions this court for 

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his 

appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) finding him not credible 

and denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review for substantial 

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60939 Document: 00516653246 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2023
No. 21-60939

2

evidence and will not disturb the BIA’s conclusions unless the evidence 

compels a contrary conclusion. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224-25 (5th 

Cir. 2018). 

As the BIA explained, there were inconsistencies between Oli’s 

statement to the asylum officer during his credible fear interview (CFI) and 

his hearing testimony. The inconsistencies were a sufficient basis for the 

contested credibility determination. See Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 

593 (5th Cir. 2021); Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 767 (5th Cir. 2020); 

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). Insofar as Oli insists that the IJ’s rejection of 

his CAT claim necessarily incorporated the adverse credibility 

determination, the record shows that he is wrong. See Arulnanthy, 17 F.4th 

at 597-98. The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 21-60939 Document: 00516653246 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2023
NO. 07-02-0457-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	MAY 12, 2003

	______________________________

	JAY N. GIANNUKOS, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 359TH DISTRICT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY;

	NO. 02-03-02101-CR; HONORABLE JAMES H. KEESHAN, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	Pursuant to pleas of guilty, appellant Jay N. Giannukos was convicted in one judgment on separate counts of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of a controlled substance.  By his notice of appeal, he challenges both convictions.  The clerk’s record was filed on January 6, 2003, and the reporter’s record was due on February 5, 2003, but has yet to be filed.  Also, no request for an extension of time was filed.  By letter dated April 22, 2003, this Court notified Jill Driscoll, Court Reporter of the 258th District Court, of the defect and requested that in the event the record could not be immediately filed, she complete and file a request form provided by this Court no later than ten days from the date of the letter.  Driscoll did not respond and the reporter’s record remains outstanding.  Thus, we now abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.  See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(a)(2).

	Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the following:

	1.	whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal;

	2.	whether appellant is indigent; and

	3.	why appellant has been deprived of a reporter’s record.

The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed.  Should it be determined that appellant does want to continue this appeal and is indigent, then the trial court shall take such measures as may be necessary to assure appellant a reporter’s record.  The trial court shall execute findings of fact, conclusions of law, and such orders as the court may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, and cause its findings and conclusions to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record.  A supplemental record of the hearing shall also be included in the appellate record.  Finally, the trial court shall file the supplemental records with the Clerk of this Court by Friday, June 27, 2003.

	It is so ordered. 

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.
B EX 10.2 06.30.2013






EXHIBIT 10.2
	
							
	
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Dawn N. Edwards
Senior Vice President, Human Resources
	 
	123 MAIN STREET
BRISTOL, CT 06010-6307


	 
	T:  860.583.7070
















June 7, 2013                            Private & Confidential


Mr. Christopher J. Stephens
16 Raymond Lane
Milford, Connecticut 06897




Subject:    Amendment to Your January 15, 2009 Offer Letter Re: Relocation Benefits




Dear Chris:


We are pleased to inform you that the company has decided to amend your January 15, 2009 offer letter by providing you a one-time relocation benefit of up to $160,000.00 (inclusive of any tax-gross up, if applicable) for eligible expenses incurred with your relocation to the Greater Hartford/Bristol area where our headquarters are located.  Eligible expenses are generally those consistent with the company's relocation policy and its practices under the policy.  For the avoidance of doubt, this one-time benefit does not include any home buy-out.  This one-time benefit is available only if the relocation is completed by December 31, 2013.  


All payments made to you by the company as part of this benefit have to be repaid upon written demand by the company if on or before July 1, 2014 either you terminate your employment voluntarily or the company terminates your employment for cause.


You will be reimbursed for eligible relocation expenses, upon expense details being submitted by you, reviewed by Robert Schneider and approved by the Sr. Vice President, Human Resources and Chief Executive Officer.


If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (860) 973-2119.


Very truly yours, 


/s/ DAWN N EDWARDS


Dawn N. Edwards
Senior Vice President, Human Resources
Barnes Group Inc.
@conference{1212766,
  author = {Jazalyn Dukes and Siamak Sattar},
  title = {Retrofit and Repair of Reinforced Concrete Walls With FRP: A Review of Experimental Investigations},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-07-13 04:07:00},
  publisher = {Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites in Civil Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, BR},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=956251},
  language = {en},
}
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 118 (Monday, June 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 29471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14631]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS


Termination of Textile Visa Requirement for Women's and Girls' 
Wool Coats Manufactured in the Russian Federation Effective July 1, 
2009

June 16, 2009.
AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the Commissioner, U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection, terminating the textile visa arrangement with Russia 
for Category 435, women's and girls' wool coats.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria D'Andrea, Office of Textiles and 
Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4058.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; 
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
1854).
    In a notice and letter published in the Federal Register on January 
31, 1997 (see 62 FR 4729), the United States established visa 
requirements for women's and girls' wool coats in Category 435 
manufactured in the Russian Federation and exported from Russia on and 
after March 1, 1997. Because textile and apparel imports into the 
United States of America from the Russian Federation are no longer 
subject to quota restrictions, there is no need to maintain the visa 
requirements. Accordingly, pursuant to the Visa Arrangement between the 
Governments of the United States of America and the Russian Federation 
that was signed on October 22, 1996 and December 31, 1996, CITA has 
notified the Russian Federation that it is terminating visa 
requirements for women's and girls' wool coats in Category 435.
    In the letter below, CITA is directing U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection to terminate the visa requirement for women's and girls' 
wool coats in Category 435 exported from Russia effective July 1, 2009.

Maria D'Andrea,
Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements.

Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements

June 16, 2009.

Commissioner,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC 20229.
    Dear Commissioner: You are directed to terminate all visa 
requirements for women's and girls' wool coats in Category 435 
exported from Russia effective July 1, 2009.
    The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has 
determined that this action falls within the foreign affairs 
exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
    Sincerely,
Maria D'Andrea,
Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements.
[FR Doc. E9-14631 Filed 6-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Jeremy Frommer, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Form 10-Q/A of Jerrick Media Holdings, Inc.;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does 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;



|Date: September 2, 2016 | By: | /s/ Jeremy Frommer          
|----------------------- | --- | ----------------------------
|                        |     | Jeremy Frommer              
|                        |     | Principal Executive Officer 
|                        |     | Jerrick Media Holdings, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1377

___________________________

Alice M. Lea

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Methodist Family Health

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

 Submitted: July 9, 2015

Filed: July 15, 2015 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Alice Lea appeals the adverse judgment the district court entered following a

1

bench trial on her Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. She assertsthat her

The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas.
trial was an “ambush,” and she essentially argues that the district court mishandled

pretrial discovery matters, and improperly convinced her to proceed without a jury. 

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion

in ruling on any pretrial discovery matter, see In re Mo. Dep’t of Natural Res., 105

F.3d 434, 435 (8th Cir. 1997) (management of discovery is committed to sound

discretion of trial court; scope of review of discovery orders is both narrow and

deferential), and that Lea waived her right to a jury trial, cf. Allen v. Barnes Hosp.,

721 F.2d 643, 644 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (failure to object to submission of case

to judge instead of jury usually waives right to jury trial). In addition, to the extent

Lea suggests that the district court made any improper rulings at trial, her failure to

order a trial transcript precludes this court from conducting a meaningful review of

such issues. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(1) (discussing appellant’s duty to order

transcript); Van Treese v. Blome, 7 F.3d 729 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (district

court’s factual findings, refusal to call witnesses, and denial of motions at bench trial

cannot be reviewed without transcript); Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters &

Joiners of Am., 827 F.2d 384, 386 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (appellant has duty

to bring before reviewing court all parts of proceedings below that are necessary for

determination of validity of any claimed error).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
#### Providenza M. Fraccola, Respondent, v Alan P. Fraccola, Appellant.

Submitted July 23, 2012;

decided October 18, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
@article{1214021,
  author = {Nathan Mahynski and Bliss Han and Daniel Markiewitz and Vincent K. Shen},
  title = {Derivable genetic programming for two-dimensional colloidal materials},
  year = {2022},
  number = {157},
  month = {2022-09-21 04:09:00},
  publisher = {The Journal of Chemical Physics},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=934805},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0106131},
  language = {en},
}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      24,336,258
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          10,025
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             4,500,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 51,195,230
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      77,449,108
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    320,280,400
<ALLOWANCE>                                 (4,793,889)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             487,549,856
<DEPOSITS>                                 397,697,991
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,955,234
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          3,590,517
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,008,570
<OTHER-SE>                                  74,297,544
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             487,549,856
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             31,099,202
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            7,650,634
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    25
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            38,749,861
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          14,166,339
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          14,356,050
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       24,393,811
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  820,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             174,086
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              9,618,076
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             18,921,191
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  18,921,191
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                12,700,834
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.41
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     5.5
<LOANS-NON>                                    404,305
<LOANS-PAST>                                   648,480
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             4,645,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  742,000
<RECOVERIES>                                    71,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            4,794,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         4,614,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        180,000
        

</TABLE>
Labor Employer Reporting Instructions

Part III - Principles of Service and Compensation

Chapter 5: Taxation of Compensation under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act

1

RUIA Tax Withholding Introduction

Unlike compensation under the RRA and the RRTA, the monthly maximum taxable and creditable 

compensation amount under the RUIA for an employee may be allocated among multiple 

concurrent employers. 

RUIA Tax Withholding from Multiple Employers 

If an employee works only for a system unit in a month, earnings are creditable and taxable under 

the RUIA up to the monthly maximum. If the employee also worked for another covered employer 

in the same month, the employee's combined earnings are creditable up to the RUIA monthly 

maximum. 

If the combined earnings exceed the RUIA monthly maximum, the creditable RUIA compensation 

may be allocated or prorated between the two employers. The method of prorating is not set by the 

Railroad Retirement Board, but by agreement between the two employers. Any method that yields 

the correct total RUIA compensation and produces payment of the RUIA contribution liability is 

acceptable to the RRB. 

Part IV, Chapter 2 and the Form OE-1 instructions includes more detailed information about 

alternative ways, including examples, to apportion RUIA earnings between multiple employers. 

Labor Organizations and RUIA Reports/Tax 

If a labor organization does not report or tax RUIA compensation because of primary carrier 

earnings, proper documentation must exist in the system subordinate unit's records to substantiate 

non-reporting of RUIA earnings. Because the RUIA maximum earnings are monthly, 

substantiation must exist for each month of non-reporting and the corresponding non-payment of 

RUIA contributions is assumed. Substantiation is needed to prevent the underpayment of RUIA 

tax and possible resultant penalties and interest.
#### In the Matter of Earl White, Respondent, v County of Sullivan, Appellant.

Submitted May 13, 2013;

decided June 26, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 23.1



Independent Auditors Consent



The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Andover Bancorp, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement on Form S-8
of Andover Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated January 13, 2000, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Andover Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 1999, which report is included
herein.



/s/ KPMG LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
March 15, 2000
NAME              ISSUE DATE          PRIN            DOC #
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHATNER          3/28/00           $4,000            9942
GLASSMAN          4/6/00            $8,000            9944
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 06, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 06, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16D0089. IN THE INTEREST OF: A. G. H. AND C. C. L., JR., CHILDREN (MOTHER)

.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

15JV00093 15JV00094