alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>



                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.11

                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                    EMPLOYMENT (CHANGE IN CONTROL) AGREEMENT

        This Amendment made as of November 1, 2002 between WSI Industries, Inc.,
a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter called the "Company"), and Paul Sheely (the
"Executive").

        WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into an Employment (Change in
Control) Agreement dated as of January 11, 2001 (the "Change in Control
Agreement"); and

        WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Change in Control
Agreement as provided in this Amendment.

        NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set
forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereby agree as
follows:

        3. Section 1 of the Change in Control Agreement is hereby amended in its
entirety as follows:

                  "1. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall commence on the
                  date hereof and shall continue in effect until January 11,
                  2005. After January 11, 2005, this Agreement shall
                  automatically renew for successive one-year periods unless WSI
                  notifies the Executive of termination of the Agreement at
                  least sixty (60) days prior to the end of the initial term or
                  any renewal term. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if a
                  Change in Control occurs, this Agreement shall continue in
                  effect for a period of 12 months from the date of the
                  occurrence of a Change in Control. Notwithstanding anything
                  herein to the contrary, the Executive's employment shall be at
                  all times at the will of WSI, and nothing in this Agreement
                  shall prohibit or limit the right of WSI or Executive, prior
                  to a Change in Control, to terminate the employment of
                  Executive for any reason or for no reason"

         4. All other terms of the Change in Control Agreement shall remain
unchanged.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Executive have executed this
Amendment as of the date first written above.

                                           WSI INDUSTRIES, INC.

                                           By:  /s/  Michael J. Pudil
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Michael J. Pudil, President

                                               /s/  Paul Sheely
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                    Paul Sheely
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          33,043
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,700
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                52,655
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    129,639
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          19,540
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            19,892
<LOANS>                                        562,005
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,254
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 839,605
<DEPOSITS>                                     677,391
<SHORT-TERM>                                    47,079
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,399
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,707
<OTHER-SE>                                      89,029
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 839,605
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 50,168
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               10,721
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,889
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                62,778
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              22,903
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,903
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           37,875
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,300
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 217
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 22,729
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,950
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      20,950
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,488
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.38
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.34
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,417
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,537
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   333
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,827
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,188
<RECOVERIES>                                       315
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,254
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,661
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,593
        

</TABLE>
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Hon. B. P. Jennings 

county Auditor 

Herddin county 

Kount%e* Texas 

Dear Sir: 

This: will-aek 

of February 9, 1940, in 

of thle department the 

Peaas Preainet and 

2,500 OF rndre popuUnited States Cemuu, 

ry Registration Diee Board of Health may 

more Eeegistretion 

a Primary 

Dletrfote, 

Registration Diatclat 

Report, where blrthe and deaths are registered 

in accordanos with a City Ordlnanoe not in 

oonilict with this Act, the City Clerk shall 

be the Looal Registrar of Rlrthe and Qeaths. 

Yit ia hereby deolered to be the duty ot 
Hon. E. P. Jennings, PageI 2 

the JUStlC% Or.thS P%%O@! in the h3tiOt3 Or the 

Peace Precinct, and the Oitg Clerk or City 

Secretary in the oity of 2,500 or more population, to secure a ocmplete record ai eaah birth 

and death that occur6 within their respectlve 

jurlsdiotlon6, and 16 required by this A&." 

The firat paragraph of Rula+Sa or aeotion e5 

or the same Arti provides: 

Vh.at eaoh looal registrar is hereby 

charged with the etrlat aad thorough eniorcenont or the provleiens of thfe f,ot (Rule8 %a55a; P. C., Art. 75la) in his regietration 

district, under the supervlaion and direotion 

of the state registrar. And he ahall make au 

immediate report to the state regietrar of any 

viOl%tion of this l&w oomiw to his kaowledge; 

by observation or upon oompleint of any person, 

or otherwi6e.R 

Article 781a or the Penal Code provide5 penaltiea ror tiolatioae ot .the Vital statiatios Law. It pmvides In part: 

*....or (e) being a looal registati, de-'. 

puty registrar, or subregistrar, shall fail, 

neglect, or refuse to petiorm his duty as required by this dot and by the 5.ustructtioa6, 

and direction of the atata registrar thereuad6r, shall be deemed guilty of' a misdemaaaor 

and upon conviction thereof shall for the l'lrst 

offense be fined not less than five dollars 

($5.00) nor rare than rifty dollar8 ($sO.OO), 

and for ench subsequent ofYen6e not less than 

ten dollnrn f$lO.OO) nor more than one hundred 

dollaro (i&100.00), or be Imprisoned in the 

oounty jail not more than sixty days, or be 

both fined and tiprieoned." 

It is clearly 1mc11 irOB the above quoted artiale 

that it 16 mandatory for a ju6tlce of the pea06 to sxeoute 

the duties trposed by the vltol ~t%ti6tia6 hW the Sam %6 
773 

Hon. B. P. Jennings, Page 3 

it $6 hi6 duty to 6X66Ut6 

is oharged. 

ell other law8 with which he 

We think It proper to here point out that the 

State Board of Health is given the right and authority 

to ocrablne two or more registration districts under the 

above quoted Rule 366, which, if done by the Board would 

relieve one of the local registrar8 from hi6 duties. 

This, howevex, 16 6 natter re6fing solely within the dieoretlon of the Board end in the absence of the earclee 

or euoh discretion 6 justice at the peace i6 required to 

6erve. 

Ycur6terytrnly 

ATT03 o&RIu.OF'pIzXAS 

I.A:AW
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD HOLMES, an individual, on his

own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COLLECTION BUREAU OF AMERICA, a

California corporation, and BAY AREA

CREDIT SERVICE, LLC, a California limited

liability company, and DOES 1–100, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-02540 WHA

ORDER DENYING

STIPULATION 

The parties have filed stipulated motions to dismiss both defendants Collection Bureau of

America and Bay Area Credit Service, LLC. They also seek to vacate the hearing scheduled for

tomorrow on plaintiff’s motion to compel. For the reasons stated in the January 22 order (Dkt.

No. 79), the parties’ stipulation to vacate tomorrow’s hearing is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02540-WHA Document 86 Filed 02/03/10 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT NO.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 accompanying Annual Report of Greene County
Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the annual period ended
December 31, 2003 (the "Report"), I, R. Stan Puckett, Chairman of the Board and
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) 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/ R. Stan Puckett
                             -------------------
                                 R. Stan Puckett
                                 Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
                                 Officer

Date: March 10, 2004

                                       1
§ 585.521 Do my financial assurance requirements change as activities progress on my limited lease or grant? ( a ) BOEM may require you to increase or allow you to decrease the amount of your financial assurance as activities progress on your limited lease or grant based on the estimated costs to meet all accrued lease or grant obligations.
( b ) The total amount of the financial assurance must be no less than the amount required to meet your limited lease and grant obligations, including: ( 1 ) The projected amount of rent and other payments due to the United States over the next 12 months;
( 2 ) Any past due rent and other payments;
( 3 ) Other monetary obligations; and
( 4 ) The estimated cost of facility decommissioning as required by 30 CFR part 285, subpart I.
( c ) If BOEM proposes adjusting the amount of your financial assurance to ensure your limited lease and grant obligations are met, BOEM will notify you of the proposed adjustment and will provide you an opportunity to object.
( d ) You may submit a written request to BOEM to reduce the amount of your financial assurance if your proposed amount is not less than the sum of your obligations listed in paragraph (b) of this section. BOEM may approve your request in its discretion.
( e ) You may satisfy the requirement for increased financial assurance on your limited lease or grant by increasing the amount of your existing bond or by providing a supplemental bond or other financial assurance. ( 1 ) The supplemental bond or other financial assurance must meet the requirements specified in §§ 585.525 through 585.529.
( 2 ) If you propose to incrementally fund your financial assurance, BOEM must approve the schedule for providing the appropriate financial assurance.
#### Sylvia Zisman, Appellant, v. New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

Motion by defendant-respondent for leave to appeal to this court from an order of the Appellate Term, granted. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
§ 57.14213 Ventilation and shielding for welding. ( a ) Welding operations shall be shielded when performed at locations where arc flash could be hazardous to persons.
( b ) All welding operations shall be well-ventilated.
EXHIBIT
99.10   From: Costabile, Tom
 Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008
10:07 AM
 To: Klinger, Mike; Friedman,
Richard
 Subject: FW: Adoption of
Severance Policy for EDC (USA) LLC
 
 Gentlemen,
 
 Thanks,
  Tommy
 _____________________________________________
  Thomas
Costabile
 President
and Chief Operating Officer
 Entertainment
Distribution Company
 825
Eighth Avenue, 23rd Floor
 New York,
NY 10019
 212-333-8483
 Tom.costabile@edcllc.com
 
 
 The
information contained in this electronic mail transmission is intended only for
the use of the individual or entity named in this transmission. If you are not
the intended recipient of this transmission, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying or distribution of the contents of this transmission is
strictly prohibited and that you should delete the contents of this transmission
from your system immediately.
 
 
 From: Bailey,
Clarke
 Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008
10:04 AM
 To: Cliff Bickell; Donald
Bates; Horace Sibley; Peter Gilson; Ray Ardizzone; Skip Speaks;
tom.costabile@edcllc.com
 Cc: Kerin
Williamson
 Subject: Adoption of Severance
Policy for EDC (USA) LLC
 
 Gentlemen,
 
 We have
been advised by counsel that we should codify our severance guidelines into a
policy that is consistent with ERISA guidelines.  The economics of this
policy are identical to those we shared with the board in the presentation of
Project Sapphire at the meeting in Gastonia, NC. Attached is the policy along
with a written resolution to approve it.  If you have any questions, please
call either me or Tom Costabile.  Otherwise please execute the written
resolution and fax a copy to 212-333-8455 and mail the original to Kerin
Williamson.
 
 Thanks
for the help.
 
 All the
best,
  Clarke
 ______________________________________________
 Chairman
 Entertainment
Distribution Company
### §3352d. Reports on reciprocity for security clearances inside of departments and agencies

#### (a) Reports to Security Executive Agent

The head of each Federal department or agency shall submit an annual report to the Security Executive Agent that, with respect to the period covered by the report—

(1) identifies the number of individuals whose security clearances took more than 2 weeks for reciprocity recognition after such individuals move to another part of such department or agency; and

(2) breaks out the information described in paragraph (1) by type of clearance and the reasons for any delays.

#### (b) Annual report

Not less frequently than once each year, the Security Executive Agent shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees and make available to industry partners a report that summarizes the information received pursuant to subsection (b) during the period covered by such report.

(Pub. L. 116–92, div. E, title LXVI, §6608, Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 2216.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Definitions

For definitions of "Security Executive Agent", "reciprocity", and "appropriate congressional committees", referred to in text, see section 3352 of this title.
#### Smith *vs.*Wade, constable, *et al.*

Where the constable’s answer to a rule shows money in his hands collected on the execution, and fails to show any legal reason for not paying it over, the rule should be made absolute. Wotice to the constable, not accompanied with any judgment, *fi. fa.,*or other lien upon the money, is no justification for withholding the money from the plaintiff whose execution brought it into court. On the facts stated in the petition for *eeriiorari,*it should receive the sanction of the judge.

*Certiorari,*Rule. Levy and sale. Before Judge Underwood. Floyd County. At Chambers. July 29, 1879.

Mrs. Smith petitioned for the writ of certiorari, presenting the following facts : She obtained an “attachment absolute” against Chambers, former constable of the 919th district, G. M., in the case of petitioner against Bailey, for $25.00, with interest at 20 per cent, per annum theron from October 9, 1877. A *ft. fa.*was issued thereon by Towers, N. P., and *ex officio*J. P.; this y?, *fa.*has been reduced to $4.50 principal, with interest. It was placed in the hands of Wade, constable, for collection ; and on January 11, 1879, the defendant therein paid to him $5.50. This amount the constable refused to pay over on demand. Wherefore she ruled him. He set up no excuse for, his failure except the receipt of the following notice :

“J. L. Wade — You are hereby notified to hold up any money in your hands in favor of M. L. Smith to pay cost in the case of Moses Bailey *vs.*M. L. Smith *vs.*Moses Bailey. January 11, 1879.

[Signed] J. L. Chambers, former L. C.”

*117The magistrate refused a rule absolute, and dismissed the rule *nisi.*Wherefore petitioner prays the wi it of *certiorari.*The writ was refused, and petitioner excepted.

W. D. Elam, by brief, for plaintiff in error.

Eorsyth *&*Hoskinson, for defendants.

Bleckley, Justice.

Mrs. Smith ruled constable No. 1, and obtained an execution against him. He paid to constable No. 2 a balance due upon this execution. She then ruled constable No. 2, who answered that constable No. 1 had served him with a notice to hold up the money, and produced a copy of the notice, or, perhaps, the original.

Whether this pair of constables are pulling together .or against each other, we see not how Mrs. Smith is to get her money by mere constable power. She seems to us to need judicial assistance. The magistrate ought to have made the rule absolute, and as he refused, the judge of the superior court should have sanctioned the petition for *certiorari.*Mere notice to an officer to detain money which he has collected on legal process, will not justify him in holding it. 53 *Ga.,*79.

Judgment reversed.
**Exhibit31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, R. W. Lane,certify that:

1.                  Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of John Deere CapitalCorporation;

2.                  Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                  Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                  Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)                Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)               Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)                Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                  Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)                Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)               Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date:  | August 31, 2006 |   | By:    | */s/ R. W. Lane*            |
|--------|-----------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------|
|   |            |   |   | R. W. Lane                  |
|   |            |   |   | Principal Executive Officer |

 

23

----
#### FINN v. MANHATTAN RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 17, 1905.)

Action by Annie Finn against the Manhattan Railway Company. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.
# C_2023148EN.01001501.xml

| 28.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/15

---

Special report 11/2023

‘EU support for the digitalisation of schools – Significant investments, but a lack of strategic focus in the use of EU financing by member states’

(2023/C 148/04)

The European Court of Auditors has published its special report 11/2023: ‘EU support for the digitalisation of schools – Significant investments, but a lack of strategic focus in the use of EU financing by member states’.

The report can be consulted directly or downloaded at the European Court of Auditors’ website: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=63783

---