alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exh10_2.htm


 











Exhibit 10.2







March 13, 2013












Bank of America, N.A.


777 Main Street


Hartford, Connecticut 06115







Henry E. Baker


1050 Buckingham Street


Waterbury, CT 06795


 


           Re:  Amendment of Subordinated Note







Ladies and Gentlemen:







Reference is made to (a) the [Second Amended and Restated] Subordinated Promissory Note dated April 5, 2010 in the original principal amount of [$3,088,889] $1,511,111 (the “Subordinated Note”) made by Crystal Rock Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Vermont Pure Holdings, Ltd. (“Holdings”) payable to the order of Henry E. Baker (the “Payee”), which Subordinated Note was collaterally assigned by the Payee to Bank of America, N.A. (the “Bank”) by the Allonge Endorsement to [Second Amended and Restated] Subordinated Promissory Note dated as of April 5, [2005] 2010, and (b) the Amended and Restated Subordination and Pledge Agreement dated as of April 5, 2010 (the “Subordination Agreement”) that is referred to in the Subordinated Note.  Capitalized terms used herein that are not defined herein have the meanings given to such terms in the Subordinated Note or the Subordination Agreement, as applicable.







In connection with the Third Amendment to the Credit Agreement, Holdings, the Payee, and the Bank have agreed, and do hereby agree, that by this agreement the Subordinated Note is hereby amended by deleting “October 5, 2015” from clause (iii) of the third paragraph of the Subordinated Notes and by substituting therefor the words “October 5, 2018”.







Except as otherwise expressly provided by this agreement, all of the respective terms and provisions of the Subordinated Note and the Subordination Agreement shall remain the same.  The Subordinated Note, as amended hereby, and the Subordination Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. This agreement and the Subordinated Note shall be read and construed as one instrument


 


This agreement is intended to take effect under, and shall be construed according to and governed by, the internal laws of the State of Connecticut (without reference to principles of conflicts or choice of law).


 




  





  











  






 


This agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, but all such counterparts shall together constitute but one instrument.  A facsimile or other electronic transmission of an executed counterpart shall have the same effect as the original executed counterpart.












Very truly yours,







Crystal Rock Holdings, Inc.


(formerly known as Vermont Pure Holdings, Ltd.).












By /s/ Peter K. Baker


Name:  Peter K. Baker


Title:    Chief Executive Officer












Agreed to:












/s/ Henry E. Baker


Henry E. Baker












Bank of America, N.A.












By /s/ Matthew E. Hummel


Name: Matthew E. Hummel


Title: Senior Vice President
Exhibit 10.32

 

ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

EFFECTIVE 08.02.12

 

David Cuthbert

 

Effective August 2, 2012 the following changes are enforced:

 

4.(b) Annual Bonus. Executive shall be eligible to receive the annual bonus as described in Appendix A.

 

Appendix A

 

Target Annual Bonus - 60%

 

 

	
WVT Communications Group
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By: 
    	
/s/ Duane W. Albro 
    	
 
    	
Executive: 
    	
/s/ David Cuthbert
    
	
 
    	
Duane W. Albro, CEO
    	
 
    	
 
    	
David Cuthbert, President & COO
EXHIBIT 32.1



In connection with the Annual Report of Microtune, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James A. Fontaine, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/    JAMES A.
FONTAINE
|James A. Fontaine       
|Chief Executive Officer 
|Microtune, Inc.         



March
15, 2004
# States

# United States
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 36254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17311]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-1034 (Review)]


Certain Color Television Receivers From China

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Termination of five-year review.

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

SUMMARY: The subject five-year review was initiated in May 2009 to 
determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain 
color television receivers from China would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of material injury. On July 1, 2009, the 
Department of Commerce published notice that it was revoking the order 
effective June 3, 2009, ``{b{time} ecause the domestic interested 
parties did not participate in this sunset review * * *'' (74 FR 
31409). Accordingly, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the subject review is terminated.

DATES: Effective Date: June 3, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of 
Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that 
information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the 
Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility 
impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the 
Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. 
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by 
accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).

    Authority: This review is being terminated under authority of 
title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 
pursuant to section 207.69 of the Commission's rules (19 CFR 
207.69).

    Issued: July 16, 2009.

    By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-17311 Filed 7-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
No. 934.

#### Greene County National Farm Loan Association et al. *v.*Federal Land Bank of Louisville et al.

April 29, 1946.

*F. H. Parvin*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General McGrath, Paul A. Sweeney, W. Carroll Hunter*and *William C. Goodwyn*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
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 Annual Report of Soyo Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K/A for the period ended  December 31, 2006 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the  undersigned,  Ming
Tung Chok,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company  certifies,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section  13a-14(b) or
15d-14(b) 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.


 /s/ Ming Tung Chok
-----------------------
Ming Tung Chok
Chief Executive Officer
August 7, 2007
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted April 13, 2016 *

Decided April 14, 2016

Before

J OEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 15

‐ 3471

BEVERLY P. WESLEY,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellant

,

v

.

J ULIÁN CASTRO, Secretary of the

United States Department of Housing

and Urban Development, and CAGAN

MANAGEMENT GROUP,

Defendants

‐ Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 15 C 6833

Manish S. Shah,

J udge

.

O R D E R

Beverly Wesley lost her home in Crete, Illinois, after defaulting on her mortgage

loan. An Illinois state court entered a judgment of foreclosure in April 2014 and a year

later approved a judicial sale of the property. Wesley then brought this action in federal

court, ostensibly under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the “foreclosing entity,” Cagan

Management Group, had violated the Constitution of the United States by commencing

the foreclosure action. Wesley also listed as a defendant the Secretary of the U.S.

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral

argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.

See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp

. P. 32.1No. 15

‐ 3471 Page 2

Department of Housing and Urban Development. After Wesley failed for a second time

to attend a scheduled hearing, the district court dismissed the suit for failure to

prosecute. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we

affirm the dismissal.

Missing a single hearing usually will not warrant dismissing a lawsuit for failure

to prosecute. See McInnis v. Duncan

, 697 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2012); Del Carmen v.

Emerson Elec. Co.

, 908 F.2d 158, 163 (7th Cir. 1990). But when a plaintiff misses multiple

hearings and has been warned of the possibility of dismissal, dismissal may be

warranted. See McInnis

, 697 F.3d at 664; Fischer v. Cingular Wireless, LLC

, 446 F.3d 663,

665–66 (7th Cir. 2006). Wesley’s case was not dismissed after a single missed hearing.

Rather, after Wesley had missed the first hearing, the district court issued a minute entry

warning her that failing to show up at the next hearing risked dismissal of her suit.

Despite this warning Wesley did not appear at the hearing two weeks later. Moreover,

Wesley has not tried to explain her absences, either to the district court in a motion to

reconsider or vacate the dismissal, see McInnis

, 697 F.3d at 664–65, or in her appellate

brief. On this record, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in

dismissing her suit.

AFFIRMED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 20, 2020 s0513

Order 

Clerk

May 20, 2020

160996

SC: 160996

In re BURGESS-EILF, Minor. COA: 349352

Bay CC Family Division:

 16-012159-NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 28, 2020 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EX-10.19



 EXHIBIT 10.19 

GLU MOBILE INC. 
 SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM 
 (As Amended on
October 4, 2012) 
 On October 4, 2012 our Board approved the following program with respect to the compensation of our
non-employee directors: 
 Cash Compensation 
  

					
	 Annual Retainer Fee:
	  	$	20,000	  
	 Chairman of the Board Fee:
	  	$	20,000	  
	 Annual Committee Fees:
	  			
	 Audit Committee Chair
	  	$	20,000	  
	 Audit Committee Member (other than Chair)
	  	$	5,000	  
	 Compensation Committee Chair
	  	$	15,000	  
	 Compensation Committee Member (other than Chair)
	  	$	5,000	  
	 Nominating and Governance Committee Chair
	  	$	5,000	  
	 Nominating and Governance Committee Member (other than Chair)
	  	$	5,000	  

 All cash compensation will be paid in quarterly installments based upon continuing service. We will also reimburse our
directors for reasonable expenses in connection with attendance at Board and committee meetings. 
 Equity Compensation

 Each year at about the time of our annual meeting of stockholders, each non-employee director will receive an additional equity award
of, at that director’s discretion, either 16,667 shares of restricted stock or an option to purchase 50,000 shares of our common stock. In either case the award will vest pro rata monthly over one year. About the time he or she joins the Board
of Directors, each new non-employee director will receive an initial equity award of, at that director’s discretion, either (a) a grant of 20,000 shares of restricted stock or (b) an option to purchase 60,000 shares of our common
stock. In either case the award will vest as to 16 2/3% of the shares after six months and thereafter vest pro rata monthly over the next 30 months.
NUMBER 13-19-00124-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE YASEMIN TURAN

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Hinojosa

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa1

Relator Yasemin Turan filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on 

March 25, 2019. Through this original proceeding, Turan seeks to compel the trial court 

to vacate its temporary orders pertaining to grandparent access and visitation and to 

dismiss the case. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 153.433 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st 

C.S.). 

 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in 

any other case,” but when “denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do 

so.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that the trial court 

committed a clear abuse of discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. 

In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In 

re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); 

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The relator 

bears the burden of proving both requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 

300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. 

Similarly, the relator has the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient mandamus 

record to establish her right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 

(Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Athans, 458 S.W.3d 675, 676 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 2015, orig. proceeding); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k) (specifying the required 

contents for the appendix); id. R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record). 

As it pertains to this case, mandamus relief is available if a trial court grants a 

grandparent’s request for temporary access to grandchildren where the grandparent fails 

to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that denial of possession of or access to 

the child would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional well-being. See 

In re Scheller, 325 S.W.3d 640, 643 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re 

Derzapf, 219 S.W.3d 327, 335 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re J.M.G., 

553 S.W.3d 137, 140 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, orig. proceeding). 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, 

the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that Turan has not met her burden to 
2

obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, without reaching the merits, we deny the petition 

for writ of mandamus and all relief sought therein.

LETICIA HINOJOSA

Justice

Delivered and filed the

9th day of April, 2019.
H. R. 867

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

For the relief of Durreshahwar Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, Asna Hasan, Anum

Hasan, and Iqra Hasan.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR DURRESHAHWAR

DURRESHAHWAR, NIDA HASAN, ASNA HASAN, ANUM

HASAN, AND IQRA HASAN.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of

section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Durreshahwar

Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, Asna Hasan, Anum Hasan, and Iqra

Hasan shall each be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa

or for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted

for permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance

of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment

of status to lawful permanent resident.

(b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Durreshahwar Durreshahwar,

Nida Hasan, Asna Hasan, Anum Hasan, or Iqra Hasan enters

the United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection

(c), she shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully

and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status

under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of

the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance

of an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status

is filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of

the enactment of this Act.

(d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—Upon the

granting of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to

Durreshahwar Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, Asna Hasan, Anum

Hasan, and Iqra Hasan, the Secretary of State shall instruct the

proper officer to reduce by 5, during the current or next following

fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made

available to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth under section

203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable,

the total number of immigrant visas that are made available to

natives of the country of the aliens’ birth under section 202(e)

of such Act.

(e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION TREATMENT FOR

CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural parents, brothers, and sisters

of Durreshahwar Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, Asna Hasan, Anum

Hasan, and Iqra Hasan shall not, by virtue of such relationship,
H. R. 867—2

be accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration

and Nationality Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
DENMARK BANCSHARES, INC.

EXHIBIT (32.1)

CERTIFICATIONS



Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. '
1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Denmark Bancshares, Inc. ("DBI"), hereby certify, based on their knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of DBI for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of DBI.



|/s/ Darrell R. Lemmens              
|------------------------------------
|Darrell R. Lemmens,                 
|Principal Executive Officer,        
|Chairman of the Board, and President



|/s/ Dennis J. Heim           
|-----------------------------
|Dennis J. Heim               
|Vice President and Treasurer,
|Principal Financial and      
|Accounting Officer           
|                             
|Date:  April 24, 2006
#### Rose GOTTLIEB et al., Plaintiffs, v. Dr. Arthur S. BRESLER, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 1179-59.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

Oct. 2, 1959.

*372Leonard Braman, Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs.

H. Mason Welch, Washington, D. C., for defendant.

HOLTZOFF, District Judge.

The Court is of the opinion that a communication received by a liability insurance company from one of its insured concerning a matter covered by the insurance policy is not a privileged communication. It is not in the same class as a communication to an attorney. The law does not recognize any privilege of insurance companies. Neither is such a letter the “work product” of a *lawyer*within the meaning of Hickman v. Taylor.1

Confining the decision, however, to the facts of the case before the Court, the Court is of the opinion that good cause, as required by Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A., has not been shown for the production of the report written by the defendant to his insurance company, in this case, which is what the plaintiffs seek.

It must always be borne in mind that while the Rules contemplate broad and liberal discovery, Rule 34 is in a different position from the other discovery rules since it, by implication, recognizes that the right to see other persons’ documents and files should be properly safeguarded as otherwise there might be an invasion of the right of privacy.

The motion for discovery and inspection of document is denied.

1

. 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451.
# laucnty12

&8Page &P of &N
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1976. KENNETH GERARD BROWN v. THE STATE.

Kenneth Gerard Brown pled guilty to two counts of criminal trespass, and the

trial court entered his judgment of conviction on March 29, 2016. Brown filed a pro

se notice of appeal on May 9, 2016. We lack jurisdiction.

To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the

order on appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice

of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. See

Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872, 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Because Brown filed

his notice of appeal 41 days after entry of the order he seeks to appeal, it is untimely. 

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

08/03/2016

August 03, 2016