alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Ex 10.1 Amendment to Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Agreement and Mitigation Clause Waiver Mary Beth Gustafsson






 EXHIBIT 10.1


    


AMENDMENT TO
NON-COMPETITION AND NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT
MITIGATION CLAUSE WAIVER




WHEREAS, First Solar, Inc. (“Employer”) and Mary Elizabeth Gustafsson (“Employee”)  are party to a Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Agreement effective as of October 6, 2008 (the “NonCompete Agreement”) and an Employment Agreement dated February 20, 2009 (as amended and in effect on the date hereof (the “Employment Agreement”));


WHEREAS, on October 1, 2013, Employee’s employment with Employer will terminate without “cause” (as defined in the Employment Agreement); 


WHEREAS, Employee is eligible to receive certain severance payments under the Employment Agreement if the release condition set forth in the Section 1.5(b)(ii) of the Employment Agreement is timely satisfied;


WHEREAS, Employee has indicated that she will timely satisfy the release condition;


WHEREAS, Section 1.5(b)(iii) of the Employment Agreement is a mitigation clause that provides for the reduction of Employee’s severance payments by the amount of compensation earned by Employee from other employment in the twelve month period following the employment termination; 


WHEREAS, Employee wishes Employer to waive the mitigation clause of Section 1.5(b)(iii) of the Employment Agreement;


WHEREAS, Employer wishes to extend the “Restricted Period” under the NonCompete Agreement from twelve months to twenty-four months after Employee’s termination of employment;


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:


		
	1.
	Section 1 of the NonCompete Agreement is amended to increase the Restricted Period from twelve to twenty-four months following Employee’s termination of employment.




		
	2.
	Employer waives the mitigation clause of Section 1.5(b)(iii) of the Employment Agreement and shall have no further force and effect. 




		
	3.
	Except as provided above, the NonCompete Agreement and Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.






	
		
	Signed:
	/s/ Mary Elizabeth Gustafsson
Mary Elizabeth Gustafsson

	Agreed to by First Solar, Inc.

	By:




Its:
	/s/ Carol Campbell
Carol Campbell


Executive Vice President, Human Resources
Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 31 Filed 02/22/11 Page 1 of 18 PageID: 339
Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 31 Filed 02/22/11 Page 2 of 18 PageID: 340
Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 31 Filed 02/22/11 Page 3 of 18 PageID: 341
Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 31 Filed 02/22/11 Page 4 of 18 PageID: 342
Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 31 Filed 02/22/11 Page 5 of 18 PageID: 343
Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 31 Filed 02/22/11 Page 6 of 18 PageID: 344
Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 31 Filed 02/22/11 Page 7 of 18 PageID: 345
Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 31 Filed 02/22/11 Page 8 of 18 PageID: 346
Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 31 Filed 02/22/11 Page 9 of 18 PageID: 347
Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 31 Filed 02/22/11 Page 10 of 18 PageID: 348
Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 31 Filed 02/22/11 Page 11 of 18 PageID: 349
Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 31 Filed 02/22/11 Page 12 of 18 PageID: 350
Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 31 Filed 02/22/11 Page 13 of 18 PageID: 351
Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 31 Filed 02/22/11 Page 14 of 18 PageID: 352
Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 31 Filed 02/22/11 Page 15 of 18 PageID: 353
Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 31 Filed 02/22/11 Page 16 of 18 PageID: 354
Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 31 Filed 02/22/11 Page 17 of 18 PageID: 355
Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 31 Filed 02/22/11 Page 18 of 18 PageID: 356
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.05
 
                      CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

                                      OF

              THE GROWTH AND GUARANTEE FUND TRADING COMPANY L.P.


          This Certificate of Limited Partnership of The Growth and Guarantee
Fund Trading Company L.P. (the "Partnership"), dated as of the 24 day of
June, 1994, is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned in accordance
with the provisions of 6 Del.C. (S)17-201 to form a limited partnership under
                         ------                                              
the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (6 Del.C. (S)17-101, et
                                                        ------            --
seq.).
---   

          1.  Name.  The name of the limited partnership formed hereby is "The
              ----                                                            
     Growth and Guarantee Fund Trading Company L.P."

          2.  Registered Office.  The address of the registered office of the
              -----------------                                              
     Partnership in the State of Delaware is c/o The Corporation Trust Company,
     Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, New Castle
     County, Delaware 19801.

          3.  Registered Agent.  The name and address of the registered agent
              ----------------                                               
     for service of process on the Partnership in the State of Delaware is The
     Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street,
     Wilmington, New Castle County, Delaware 19801.

          4.  General Partner.  The name and the business address of the sole
              ---------------                                                
     general partner of the Partnership is:

               ML Futures Investment Partners Inc.
               Merrill Lynch World Headquarters
               Sixth Floor, South Tower
               World Financial Center
               New York, New York 10080-6106

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned general partner has duly executed
this Certificate of Limited Partnership as of the date first-above written.

                              ML Futures Investment Partners Inc.
                              General Partner

                              /s/ James M. Bernard
                              -----------------------------------
                              James M. Bernard, Chief Financial
                                    Officer, Vice President and
                                    Treasurer
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-09-14T14:21:50Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-09-14T14:21:51Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-09-14T14:21:51Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="14114">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="1">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-09-14T14:21:50Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<p>0 1310 , </p>
<p></p>
<div class="ocr">0 £310

WITH DRAWN
AND NCI
PEISGUED
</div>

</div>
</body></html>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00774

- CV

Kirk GRONDA

, Appellant

v.

Felipe LERMA

, Appellee

From the 153rd Judicial District Court, Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 153

- 250263

- 11 Honorable Susan Heygood McCoy, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. Costs of this appeal are taxed against Appellant Kirk Gronda.

SIGNE D January 22 , 2014.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Patient Safety Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven
H. Kane, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Date:  July
      10, 2009
              /s/  Steven H.
    KaneSteven
      H. KaneChief
      Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6968

ALBERT SNYDER,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 versus

SHIRLEY L. PHELPS-ROPER; REBEKAH A.

PHELPS-DAVIS,

 Defendants - Appellants,

 and

FRED W. PHELPS, SR.; JOHN DOES; JANE DOES;

WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH, INCORPORATED,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.

(1:06-cv-01389-RDB)

Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: December 4, 2007

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, Rebekah A. Phelps-Davis, Appellants Pro

Se. Sean E. Summers, Paul W. Minnich, Rees Griffiths, BARLEY &
- 2 -

SNYDER, LLC, York, Pennsylvania; Craig T. Trebilcock, SHUMAKER &

WILLIAMS, PC, York, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Rebekah A. Phelps-Davis and Shirley L. Phelps-Roper seek

to appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to

dismiss or for summary judgment in Appellee’s civil suit. This

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial

Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Phelps-Davis and

Phelps-Roper seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We further deny the

Appellants’ renewed motion for stay, motion for emergency hearing,

and motion for the district court to provide original audio tapes.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Steven Tanger, Respondent, v Alfred Ferrer III et al., Appellants.

[853 NYS2d 316]

This action arises out of defendants’ representation of plaintiff in an action brought by plaintiffs landlord. During the course of said action, defendants drafted three tenders that purported to be made pursuant to CPLR 3219. This Court found that the tenders were conditional and therefore did not act to stop the accrual of interest on the landlord’s claim *(Solow Mgt. Corp. v Tanger,*1 AD3d 165, 166 [2003]). In addition, in the underlying action, defendants filed untimely post-trial briefs, which were not considered by the court, and prepared, but did not file, an appellate reply brief, contrary to their written acknowledgment to plaintiff.

While we reject defendants’ argument that the tenders were proper, the finding that they were ineffective merely reflects an unsuccessful litigation strategy and does not constitute negligence. In order to be effective, a CPLR 3219 tender must be unconditional *(see Castle Coal & Oil Co. v Frank's Fuel,*45 AD2d 836 [1974]), and defendants are collaterally estopped from contesting the determination that the tenders were conditional *(see Buechel v Bain,*97 NY2d 295, 303 [2001], *cert denied*535 US 1096 [2002]; *Ryan v New York Tel. Co.,*62 NY2d 494, 500 [1984]). In any event, by including a “reservation of rights” in the tender notice, defendants imposed a condition on the tender, by seeking to allow plaintiffs defenses and counterclaims to survive, contrary to a satisfaction of the landlord’s claim in that action *(see*CPLR 3219). Having chosen the litigation strategy of employing a CPLR 3219 tender, defendants were obligated to execute the strategy in compliance with the statute. This does not necessarily constitute malpractice in the context of the ongoing dispute between Solow and plaintiff which involved six separate and ongoing lawsuits arising out of a rent strike. An *287explication of this strategy necessarily requires trial as it is a contested issue unresolved by discovery. Concur-Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
# CY 2016

# image3.emf

# image4.emf

# image5.emf

# image1.emf

# image2.emf

# image6.png
Exhibit 23



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  following  Registration
Statements  of The Black & Decker  Corporation  of our report dated  February 6,
2004, with respect to the consolidated  financial statements and schedule of The
Black & Decker  Corporation  included in the Annual  Report  (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 2003.


Registration Statement Number                                  Description

33-6610                                                        Form S-8
33-6612                                                        Form S-8
33-26917                                                       Form S-8
33-26918                                                       Form S-8
33-33251                                                       Form S-8
33-47651                                                       Form S-8
33-47652                                                       Form S-8
33-58795                                                       Form S-8
33-65013                                                       Form S-8
333-03593                                                      Form S-8
333-51155                                                      Form S-8
333-51157                                                      Form S-8
333-35986                                                      Form S-8



/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Baltimore, Maryland
March 1, 2004
ELECTRONIC RECORD

356-/5"

3 5" 7-/5"

COA# 01-13-00775-CR OFFENSE: 37.1(Tamp Gov't Records)

Raleigh Jordan v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Harris

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 209th District Court

DATE:03/10/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 1329597

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 35*-/?

STYLE: Raleigh Jordan v. The State of Texas 357-/T

APPBLL^MT^S Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: Q6fel/jr

JUDGE: AlA

CCA#:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED: PC:

PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
BLS Technical Advisory Committee June 17, 2022

 

10:00 am Commissioner’s Welcome and Review of Agency Developments

10:30 am Why are Estimates of Hours Worked by the Self-Employed So Volatile?

 Presenters: Cindy Cunningham, BLS Office of Productivity and Technology

 Sabrina Pabilonia, BLS Office of Productivity and Technology

 Discussants: Brady West, University of Michigan

 Aysegul Sahin, University of Texas at Austin

 12:00 pm Lunch

1:00 pm A Methodology to Incorporate Alternative Data in Import and Export Price Indexes 

 Presenter: Dominic Smith, BLS Office of Prices and Living Conditions 

 Discussants: Alberto Cavallo, Harvard Business School

 Marshall Reinsdorf, International Monetary Fund

2:30 pm Chain-Link Employment Cost Index

 Presenter: Michael Lettau, Office of Compensation and Working Conditions

 Discussants: Bart Hobijn, Arizona State University

 Carol Corrado, The Conference Board

4:00 pm Conclusion

All times Eastern Standard Time. Please contact BLSTAC@bls.gov for questions.

Virtual Registration at https://blstac.eventbrite.com
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Federal Communications Commission
 The following items have been deleted from the list of Agenda items scheduled for consideration at the July 2, 2009, open meeting and previously listed in the Commission's Notice of June 25, 2009. These items have been adopted by the Commission. Item No.
Bureau
Subject1
Office of Engineering and Technology
*Title:*
                             Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Provide Spectrum for the Operation of Medical Body Area Networks (ET Docket No. 08-59).*Summary:*
                             The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to allocate spectrum and establish service and technical rules for the operation of Medical Body Area Networks to monitor patients' physiological data.2
Media
*Title:*
                             Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast Stations (MB Docket No. 07-172; RM-11338).*Summary:*
                             The Commission will consider a Report and Order concerning changes in the FM translator rules to allow AM broadcast stations to rebroadcast their signals on eligible FM translator stations.3
Wireless Tele-Communications
*Title:*
                             Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission's Rules to Accommodate 30 Megahertz Channels in the 6525-6875 MHz Band (RM-11417), 
                            *et al.**Summary:*
                             The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addressing whether to provide licensees with authority to operate on channels with bandwidths up to 30 megahertz in the Upper 6 GHz band and whether to extend conditional authority to two additional channel pairs in the 23 GHz band, as well as an Order addressing a related waiver request.
 Revised Sunshine Notice The Meeting will include a presentation on the status of the Commission's process for developing a National Broadband Plan. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.


[FR Doc. E9-15820 Filed 6-30-09; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 12 Filed 03/21/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 59
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 12 Filed 03/21/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 60
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration StatementsNo. 33-16059, No. 33-12755, No. 33-55614, No. 33-80504, No. 333-00327 and No. 333-44180 of Sharper Image Corporation on Form S-8 of (i) our report dated May 1, 2006 (March 1, 2007 as to the effects ofrestatement discussed in Note B), relating to the financial statements of Sharper Image Corporation (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the restatement discussed in Note B), (ii) ourreport dated May 1, 2006 on the financial statement schedule included in Item 15 and (iii) our report dated May 1, 2006 (March 1, 2007 as to the effect of the material weaknesses described in Management’s Report on InternalControls over Financial Reporting (as Revised)) on internal control over financial reporting (which report expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting because of materialweaknesses) appearing in this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Sharper Image Corporation for the year ended January 31, 2006. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

San Francisco, California 

March 1, 2007
#### ROSENBERG et al. v. COHEN.

Civ. A. No. 9275.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

July 11, 1949.

Lewis Weinstock, of Conlen, LaBrum & Beechwood, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.

*329William Barclay Lex, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge.

If the second cause of action states a case of deceit, the defendant’s argument that, since there is no allegation that the plaintiffs parted with the property for less than its fair value, no damages have been shown and consequently no action lies, would have to be considered. If it states a case in equity for the declaration of a trust with an accounting for the plaintiffs’ share of the profits, then the defendant’s argument, that no confidential relationship, between the parties out of which a trust could arise has been shown, would have to be considered. It is not, however, necessary to deal with either of these theories of the cause of action or to try to extract from the complaint which one was intended or whether both were intended.

“A party may also state as many separate claims or defenses as he has regardless of consistency and whether based on legal or on equitable grounds or on both.” Rule 8(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. The second cause of action incorporates by reference Paragraph 8 of the first cause of action. Leaving out unnecessary parts of that paragraph it states “defendant agreed that * * * if defendant should transact any business with William A. Flinn, Jr. in connection with * * * the interest of said William A. Flinn, Jr. in the said trust estate, * * * defendant would share equally with plaintiff Rosenberg any profits * * * received by defendant.” This is a plain statement of a contract and the remainder of the second cause of action contains an equally plain statement of its breach.

It is by now a familiar rule that a complaint cannot be dismissed “except where it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim.” Continental Collieries v. Shober, 3 Cir., 130 F.2d 631, 635. Under this rule, whatever the validity of the theory of deceit or of breach of trust may be, the complaint cannot be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

The defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied.