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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 47 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 47

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed transfer to the 
     Kingdom of Saudi Arabia certain defense articles and services.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the issuance of an export 
license with respect to the following proposed exports to the Kingdom 
of Saudi Arabia is prohibited:
            (1) The transfer of the following defense articles, 
        including services and technical data, described in Executive 
        Communication 1423 (EC-1423) submitted to Congress pursuant to 
        section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
        2776(c)) and published in the Congressional Record on June 3, 
        2019: The proposed export of defense articles, including data 
        and defense services, to support the performance of maintenance 
        and repair services of F110 engines to support the Ministry of 
        Defense of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

            Passed the Senate June 20, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 47

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed transfer to the 
     Kingdom of Saudi Arabia certain defense articles and services.
```
****

**EXHIBIT 18**

Board of Directors

Hercules Incorporated

Hercules Plaza

1313 North Market Street

Wilmington, DE 19894

****

Dear Directors:

We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your Form 10-K filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.

We have audited the consolidated financial statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 and issued our report thereon dated March 11, 2004.  Note 1 to the financialstatements describes a change in accounting principle for the Company's employee stock ownership plan from the method prescribed by Statement of Position 76-3, "Accounting Practices for Certain Employee Stock Ownership Plans," to the method prescribed by Statement ofPosition 93-6, "Employers' Accounting for Employee Stock Ownership Plans."  It should be understood that the preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another for employee stock ownership plans has not been addressed in any authoritativeaccounting literature, and in expressing our concurrence below we have relied on management's determination that this change in accounting principle is preferable.  Based on our reading of management's stated reasons and justification for this change inaccounting principle in the Form 10-K, and our discussions with management as to their judgment about the relevant business planning factors relating to the change, we concur with management that such change represents, in the Company's circumstances, the adoption ofa preferable accounting principle in conformity with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 20.

Very truly yours,

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 11, 2004
(55 South. 339.)

No. 18,796.

#### LAMBETH v. NEW ORLEANS GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. In re NEW ORLEANS GREAT NORTHERN R. CO.

(May 8, 1911.)

Action by S. S. Lambeth against the New Orleans Great Northern Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant applies for a certiorari.

Judgment reversed, and case remanded.

Miller & McDougall, for applicant. P. B. Carter, for respondent.

MONROE, J.

This case presents the same question, concerning the requirements of Act No. 261 of 1908, as to the manner of serving citation upon' a corporation, the return of the sheriff, or constable with respect thereto, and .the right of a defendant corporation under an ’ exception to the citation for want of conformity to those requirements, as are presented and fully considered in the case entitled Carter C. Welch v. New Orleans Great Northern Railroad Co., 55 South. 338, No. 18,795 of the docket of this court, this day decided. Wherefore, for the reasons assigned in that case, which are applicable here, the court being of opinion that no legal citation was served upon defendant in the instant case, and hence that there was error in the judgment of the justice of the peace overruling defendant’s exception to that effect, and in the judgment subsequently rendered against defendant upon the merits, as also in the action of the district court affirming said judgments, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgments of the district court and of the justice of peace herein, upon defendant’s exception to the citation, as also the judgment of those tribunals condemning defendant herein upon the merits of this case, be annulled, avoided, and reversed, and it is further decreed that the case be remanded to the Third ward justice court for Washington parish, to be there proceeded with according to law, all costs incurred by and after the filing of said exception, including the costs of this proceeding, to be paid by plaintiff, all other costs to await the final result.
EXHIBIT 32.1


The following certification  accompanies North Bay Bancorp's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q and is not filed as provided in SEC Release Nos. 33-8212, 34-47551 and
IC 25967, dated March 21, 2003.


                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the  accompanying  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of North Bay
Bancorp for the quarter  ended March 31, 2004, I, Terry L.  Robinson,  President
and Chief Executive Officer of North Bay Bancorp,  hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that:

(1)  such  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of North Bay  Bancorp  for the quarter
     ended March 31, 2004, 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 such Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of North
     Bay Bancorp for the quarter ended March 31, 2004,  fairly presents,  in all
     material  respects,  the  financial  condition and results of operations of
     North Bay Bancorp.


Dated:    May 13, 2004                    /s/ Terry L. Robinson
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          TERRY L. ROBINSON
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer



                                       23
Exhibit 10.23

Termination  of aircraft lease executed by and between Golden Flake Snack Foods,
Inc.,  a  wholly-owned  subsidiary  of  Golden  Enterprises,  Inc., and Joann F.
Bashinsky  dated  April  22,  2010.

                                       50
<PAGE>

                         TERMINATION OF AIRPLANE LEASE
                         -----------------------------

     THIS TERMINATION OF AIRPLANE LEASE is made by and between Golden Flake
Snack Foods, Inc. (herein referred to as "Lessor"), and Joann F. Bashinsky
(hereinafter referred to as "Lessee") as of the date set forth below.

                                  WITNESSETH:

     WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee entered into that certain Lease of Airplane
dated February 1, 2006 (the "Airplane Lease") in regard to a Cessna Citation II
N 200GF/ 550-0556 (the "Aircraft"); and

     WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee desire to terminate the Airplane Lease.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

     1.      Lessor and Lessee hereby terminate the Airplane Lease and hereby
agree that they shall have no further liability to one another with regard to
any rights, covenants, obligations or claims set forth in the Airplane Lease.

      2.     This Termination of Lease is effective as of April 22, 2010 and is
the final expression of the agreement between the parties hereto and may not be
contradicted by evidence of any prior oral or written agreement between such
parties.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals effective as
of the 22nd day of April, 2010.


                                            LESSOR:

                                            GOLDEN FLAKE SNACK FOODS, INC.
WITNESS:

                                            By:
------------------------------                   -------------------------
                                                 Mark W. McCutcheon
                                                 Its President


                                            LESSEE:
WITNESS:


------------------------------              ------------------------------
                                            JOANN F. BASHINSKY



                                       51
#### Patrick R. ZIMPFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ITT LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN FOR SALARIED EMPLOYEES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-56427. D.C. No. CV-99-10771-R.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*319Submitted April 4, 2002.*

Decided April 23, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and REED,** District Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

The Honorable Edward C. Reed, Jr., Senior United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Patrick Zimpfer appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the ITT Long Term Disability Plan for Salaried Employees (the Plan) on his claim for improper denial of benefits. We affirm.

(1) The Plan documents were properly admitted because they are not hearsay. *See Stuart v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am.,*217 F.3d 1145, 1154 (9th Cir.2000); *United States v. Rubier,*651 F.2d 628, 630 (9th Cir.1981) (per curiam). Of course, documents must be authenticated, and these were. *See United States v. Tank,*200 F.3d 627, 630 (9th Cir.2000).

(2) The Plan unambiguously confers discretion upon the Plan’s Administrative Committee, and the Committee *320properly delegated that discretion to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. We have previously so held. *See Madden v. ITT Long Term Disability Plan,*914 F.2d 1279, 1284-85 (9th Cir.1990). Moreover, the fact that the Summary Plan Description does not specifically mention that the Plan’s Administrative Committee has discretion does not affect that discretion. *See Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co., Inc.,*45 F.3d 1317, 1321-22 (9th Cir.1995); *see also Martin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Va., Inc.,*115 F.3d 1201, 1205 (4th Cir. 1997). Thus, our review is deferential; we review for abuse of discretion only. *See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.,*120 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc); *Atwood,*45 F.3d at 1321; *Madden,*914 F.2d at 1285.

(3) We have performed that review, and, while it is no doubt true that there was evidence to sustain a finding of disability, there was also substantial evidence to sustain the denial. We cannot say that the decision of the Plan was so unexplained or inexplicable that it constituted an abuse of discretion. *See Barnett v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan,*32 F.3d 413, 416-17 (9th Cir.1994); *Taft v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y,*9 F.3d 1469, 1473-74 (9th Cir.1993). *Regula v. Delta Family-Care Disability Survivorship Plan,*266 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir.2001), does not change our conclusion because in this case the administrator had specific and legitimate reasons based on the record to decide as it did. *See id.*at 1140.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.30

                                      COPE
                                      ----
                            DATA STORAGE CONSULTANTS


LOAN AGREEMENT
--------------

Between

COPE Holding AG
Grundstrasse 14
6343 Rotkreuz

And

Marco Schaerer
Theaterstrasse 3
6003 Lucerne


Rotkreuz, October 12, 1999


1. Schaerer shall grant a term loan to COPE Holding AG by December 30, 1999. The
loan shall be used for the repurchase of COPE, Inc., shares.
2. The amount of the loan is Fr. 1,000,000.00 (one million francs).
3. As interest, Schaerer shall receive a total of 1,000 shares of COPE, Inc., on
December 30, 1999. They are freely transferable. If Schaerer elects to extend
the loan, then another tranche of 1,000 shares of COPE, Inc., shall be due as
interest each quarter.
4. As additional security, Adrian Knapp both personally and jointly and
severally guarantees the repayment of the loan, including interest, by March 31,
2000, at the latest.

Signed in agreement with the above stipulations:



                                       [signatures]
Marco Schaerer                         COPE Holding AG
                                       Markus Bernhard/Adrian Knapp


[signature]
Adrian Knapp (as joint and several debtor)
§ 1300.32 Amendments to annual grant applications. ( a ) During the fiscal year of the grant, States may amend the annual grant application, except performance targets, subsequent to the initial approval under § 1300.12. States shall document changes to the annual grant application electronically.
( b ) The State shall amend the annual grant application, prior to beginning project performance, to provide complete and updated information at the level of detail required by § 1300.12(b)(2), about each project agreement it enters into.
( c ) Amendments and changes to the annual grant application are subject to approval by the Regional Administrator before approval of vouchers for payment, except that amendments to information submitted under § 1300.12(b)(2)(iii) through (vii) do not require approval unless the amendment requires prior approval under 2 CFR 200.407. Regional Administrators will disapprove changes and projects that are inconsistent with the triennial HSP, as updated, or that do not constitute an appropriate use of highway safety grant funds. States are independently responsible for ensuring that projects constitute an appropriate use of highway safety grant funds.
### §4. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, act Aug. 25, 1916, ch. 408, §4, 39 Stat. 536, related to rights-of-way through public lands. See section 100303 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
Case 16-32578-KLP Doc 9 Filed 06/22/16 Entered 06/22/16 12:20:23 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 14
Case 16-32578-KLP Doc 9 Filed 06/22/16 Entered 06/22/16 12:20:23 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 14
Case 16-32578-KLP Doc 9 Filed 06/22/16 Entered 06/22/16 12:20:23 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 14
Case 16-32578-KLP Doc 9 Filed 06/22/16 Entered 06/22/16 12:20:23 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 14
Case 16-32578-KLP Doc 9 Filed 06/22/16 Entered 06/22/16 12:20:23 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 14
Case 16-32578-KLP Doc 9 Filed 06/22/16 Entered 06/22/16 12:20:23 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 14
Case 16-32578-KLP Doc 9 Filed 06/22/16 Entered 06/22/16 12:20:23 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 14
Case 16-32578-KLP Doc 9 Filed 06/22/16 Entered 06/22/16 12:20:23 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 14
Case 16-32578-KLP Doc 9 Filed 06/22/16 Entered 06/22/16 12:20:23 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 14
Case 16-32578-KLP Doc 9 Filed 06/22/16 Entered 06/22/16 12:20:23 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 14
Case 16-32578-KLP Doc 9 Filed 06/22/16 Entered 06/22/16 12:20:23 Desc Main

 Document Page 11 of 14
Case 16-32578-KLP Doc 9 Filed 06/22/16 Entered 06/22/16 12:20:23 Desc Main

 Document Page 12 of 14
Case 16-32578-KLP Doc 9 Filed 06/22/16 Entered 06/22/16 12:20:23 Desc Main

 Document Page 13 of 14
Case 16-32578-KLP Doc 9 Filed 06/22/16 Entered 06/22/16 12:20:23 Desc Main

 Document Page 14 of 14
#### John E. Milholland, Appellant, *v.*Daniel F. Payne, Respondent.

Third Department,

November 12, 1913.

Real property—suit to compel specific performance of oral contract to convey—consideration—waiver of defense of Statute of Frauds.

Where, in a suit for the specific performance of an oral contract of the defendant to purchase land and convey to plaintiff, it appears that the plaintiff promised to repay him the purchase price and a reasonable commission for his services, the mutual promises furnish consideration for the contract.

The defendant having failed to plead the Statute of Frauds waived that defense.

*11Appeal by the plaintiff, John E. Milholland, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Essex on the 17th day of October, 1912, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the Essex Special Term.

*Adelbert W. Boynton [Edgar T. Brackett*of counsel], for the appellant.

*Smith & Wickes [Francis A. Smith*of counsel], for the respondent.

Smith, P. J.:

The action is brought in equity to compel the defendant to deed to the plaintiff certain land theretofore purchased by the defendant on the ground that the defendant had agreed to purchase the same for the plaintiff, and upon the promise of the defendant to make such conveyance to plaintiff. The case was tried before the court without a jury. The court refused to make findings of fact, but dismissed the complaint on two grounds; one, that the contract under which plaintiff claimed was void by the Statute of Frauds, and the other that it was without consideration.

I cannot agree with the learned trial judge that the contract was without consideration. It might have been found from the evidence that the defendant agreed to purchase the land and convey to plaintiff in consideration of the promise of the plaintiff to pay him the moneys which he paid therefor and a reasonable commission for his services. These mutual promises furnish consideration one for the other, and if the plaintiff is to be denied the right to recover, such denial must rest upon the invalidity of the contract as made void by the Statute of Frauds. The trial judge rested his decision as to the invalidity of the contract upon the case of *Wheeler*v. *Reynolds*(66 N. Y. 235). That case would seem to authorize the judgment made if the defendant were in a position to avail himself of the objection of the invalidity of the contract. It is now settled law that a failure to plead the Statute of Frauds precludes the party from claiming the invalidity of an oral contract thereunder. *(Crane*v. *Powell,*139 N. Y. 379; *Matthews*v. *Matthews,*154 id. 288.) *12It would appear then that under a contract for a valuable consideration the defendant promised to purchase this land for the plaintiff, and convey to him, and, defendant having waived the defense of the Statute of Frauds, plaintiff was entitled to enforce the contract.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concurred.

Judgment reversed and new .trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.
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  Quaterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of North Shore
Capital IV, Inc., (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2003, filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission (the  "Report"),  I, Gerard Werner,
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:

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

(2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects,  the consolidated  financial  condition of the Company as of the dates
presented and consolidated  results of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.

Dated: October 10, 2005


/s/ Gerard Werner
Chief Executive Officer
October 10, 2005



This  certification  has been  furnished  solely  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
#### § 76.28 Location of hearing.

The hearing shall be held in the judicial district of the United States Attorney's Office having jurisdiction over the matter.
Exhibit 99



Report of Audit Committee



GREAT NORTHERN IRON ORE PROPERTIES

Report of Audit Committee

Year Ended December 31, 2008



The Audit Committee oversees the Trusts financial reporting process on behalf of the Board of Trustees. Management has the primary responsibility for the financial statements and the reporting process including the systems of internal controls. In fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, the Audit Committee reviewed the audited financial statements in the Annual Report with management including a discussion of the quality, not just the acceptability, of the accounting principles, the reasonableness of significant judgments and the clarity of disclosures in the financial statements.



The Audit Committee reviewed with the independent auditors, who are responsible for expressing an opinion on the conformity of those audited financial statements with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, their judgments as to the quality, not just the acceptability, of the Trusts accounting principles and such other matters as are required to be discussed with the Audit Committee under auditing standards generally accepted in the United States. In addition, the Audit Committee has discussed with the independent auditors the auditors independence from management and the Trust including the matters in the written disclosures required by the Independence Standards Board.



The Audit Committee discussed with the Trusts independent auditors the overall scope and plans for their audit. The Audit Committee met with the independent auditors, with and without management present, to discuss the results of their examination, their evaluation of the Trusts internal controls and the overall quality of the Trusts financial reporting.



The Board of Trustees accepted the Audit Committees reappointment of Ernst & Young LLP as independent auditors to the financial statements of the Trust for the year 2008. All audit and non-audit services (printing and reproduction services) were preapproved by the Audit Committee. Fees paid in 2008 for the annual audit services are $76,600, for audited-related services are $6,350, for tax services are $0 and for all other services are $3,000. Fees paid in 2007 for the annual audit services were $73,700, for audit-related services were $1,300, for tax services were $0 and for all other services were $3,000.



In reliance on the reviews and discussions referred to above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Trustees that the audited financial statements be included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Respectfully submitted,



/s/ Robert A. SteinRobert A. Stein, Audit Committee Chairman/s/ Roger W. StaehleRoger W. Staehle, Audit Committee Member/s/ John H. Roe, IIIJohn H. Roe, III, Audit Committee Member

        Dated:

        February 26, 2009