alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.5



AMENDMENT

TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



This Amendment to the Employment Agreement (the Amendment) is made as of the 18th day of May, 2004 between Premcor Inc. (the Company) and [Executives Namesee schedule A attached hereto] (the Executive).



RECITALS



A. The parties hereto are parties to an Employment Agreement dated June 1,
2002, as amended (the Employment Agreement).



B.
The parties hereto desire to amend and modify certain provisions of the Employment Agreement as provided herein.



AGREEMENT



In consideration of the foregoing, the mutual covenants herein contained and other good and valuable consideration (the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by the parties by their execution hereof), the
parties agree as follows.



1. Definitions. For purposes
of this Amendment, capitalized terms used herein have the same meanings ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement.



2. Amendment to the Employment Agreement.



Section 4 of the Employment Agreement is amended by changing the word three to four in the third sentence, so that the third
sentence, in pertinent part, is as follows:



, provided that in no event shall the Annual Bonus be greater than four times Executives Base Salary.



3. No Other Modifications. Nothing herein contained in any way impairs the Employment Agreement, or alters, waives, annuls, varies or affects any
provision, condition or covenant therein, except as specifically set forth in this Amendment. All other provisions of the Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect.



4. Counterparts. This Amendment may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original, with the same
effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument.





---

5. Successors; Binding Agreement. All provisions of this Amendment shall inure to the benefit of
and be binding upon personal or legal representatives, executors, administrators, successors, heirs, distributes, devises and legatees of the Executive.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment as of the date and year first above written.



|             |  |                           |  |           |  |  |  |                   
|------------ |  | ------------------------- |  | --------- |  |  |  | ------------------
|PREMCOR INC. |  |                           |  | EXECUTIVE
|             |  |                           |  |          
|By:          |  | /s/ Thomas D. OMalley    |  |           |  |  |  |                   
|Print Name:  |  | Thomas D. OMalley        |  |           |  |  |  | [Executives Name]
|Title:       |  | Chairman of the Board and |  |           |  |  |  |                   
|             |  | Chief Executive Officer   |  |           |  |  |  |                   
|             |  | Premcor Inc.              |  |           |  |  |  |                   



2



---

Schedule A



Executive:



William E. Hantke

Henry M. Kuchta

Joseph D. Watson

James R.
Voss

Michael D. Gayda

Donald
Lucey
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 11008]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03633]


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

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET


Fiscal Year 2020 Cost of Inpatient Hospital and Medical Care 
Treatment Furnished by the Department of Defense Medical Treatment 
Facilities; Certain Rates Regarding Recovery From Tortiously Liable 
Third Persons

AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the 
President.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    By virtue of the authority vested in the President by 42 U.S.C. 
2652, the rates referenced below are hereby established. These rates 
are for use in connection with the recovery from tortiously liable 
third persons for the inpatient medical services furnished by military 
treatment facilities through the Department of Defense. They are the 
same rates as the inpatient third party reimbursement rates that were 
set on October 1, 2019 for billing medical insurers, but require a 
different approval authority for the purpose of billing for tort 
liability. The rates were established in accordance with the 
requirements of OMB Circular A-25, requiring reimbursement of the full 
cost of all services provided. The fiscal year 2020 inpatient medical 
rates referenced are effective for billing tort liability upon 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register and will remain in 
effect until further notice. Previously published outpatient medical 
and dental, and cosmetic surgery rates remain in effect until further 
notice. Pharmacy rates are updated periodically. A full disclosure of 
the rates is posted at Health.mil website in the Defense Health Agency 
Uniform Business Office section (http://health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Business-Support/Uniform-Business-Office/Billing/Medical-Affirmative-Claims).

Robert S. Fairweather,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 2021-03633 Filed 2-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P
See See Testing

Current Version on EPA Website

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/caulk/guide/flowchart

Collect 

indoor air 

samples Sample 

Caulk

Are PCB

present 

>50 ppm

PreWhen was 1980

building

g

and 

Characterization Section

Abatement 

Planned

Abatement 

Section

No 

Action 

No

If air levels of 

PCBs are above 

EPA’s 

recommended 

levels, investigate 

No areas of concern

further

After 

1980

building

built? Renovation 

Planned

for cau

further

action

Decide to 

test for 

PCBs?

Yes

Proceed 

with Caution

See 

Renovation/ 

Repair

No

See Abatement 

Section

with Caution Repair

Section

Is Source of 

PCBs 

Manufacturer 

or Release?

Release

PCB 

Remediation 

Waste: See 

Disposal Section

Consider 

testing other 

materials 

PCB Bulk Product 

Waste : See 

Disposal Section

Manufacturer

materials

(e.g., paints)
Exhibit 32.1







Certification of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002










Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Chyron Corporation, a New York corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:






The Quarterly Report for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as applicable, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.













Dated:
May 12, 2011

/s/ Michael Wellesley-WesleyMichael Wellesley-WesleyPresident andPrincipal Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT NO. 23.1

                CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 33-71278) pertaining to the Warrant Agreement dated as of
August 29, 1991, the Registration Statement (Form S-2 No. 33-49072) pertaining
to stock warrants and options issued to certain directors, officers, employees
and service providers, the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-64466)
pertaining to resale of 888,900 shares of outstanding common stock, the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-79336) pertaining to the Convertible
Debentures issued April 22, 1994, and the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 33-20188) pertaining to the Incentive Stock Option and Appreciation Plan
and 1988 Non-qualified Stock Option Plan of IMRE Corporation of our report
dated January 23, 1996, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
of IMRE Corporation as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, and for each year then
ended included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December
31, 1995.




                                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Seattle, Washington
February 19, 1996
604.7103 Review by Assistant Legal Adviser for Buildings and Acquisitions (L/BA). ( a ) L/BA shall review solicitations, contract awards, and delivery orders against GSA Federal Supply Schedule contracts exceeding $1 million that are generated by domestic contracting activities, including RPSOs. L/BA shall also review domestic contract modifications exceeding $1 million if the scope or ceiling of the contract may be in question. This review is not required for modifications exercising priced options, incremental funding modifications, and similar actions that do not involve questions regarding the scope or ceiling of the contract.
( b ) L/BA shall also review and approve any nonpersonal services contract, purchase order or blanket purchase agreement to be awarded to an individual who is a U.S. citizen.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

August 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131267 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

RALPH MASON, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131267 

 COA: 265522 

WCAC: 04-000078 

PAPA ROMANO, and HARTFORD 

ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY,

 Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 13, 2006 order 

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. 

l0821 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

August 29, 2006 

 Clerk
#### 636.602-5 Short selection processes for contracts not to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

The short selection process described in FAR 36.602-5 is authorized for use for contracts not expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

[59 FR 66766, Dec. 28, 1994, as amended at 60 FR 39663, Aug. 3, 1995]
#### 552.238-117 Price Adjustment—Failure to Provide Accurate Information.

As prescribed in 538.273(d)(37), insert the following clause:

# Price Adjustment—Failure To Provide Accurate Information (OCT 2023)

(a) The Government, at its election, may reduce the price of this contract or contract modification if the Contracting Officer determines after award of this contract or contract modification that the price negotiated was increased by a significant amount because the Contractor failed to:

(1) Provide information required by this solicitation/contract or otherwise requested by the Government; or

(2) Submit information that was current, accurate, and complete; or

(3) Disclose changes in the Contractor's commercial pricelist(s), discounts or discounting policies which occurred after the original submission and prior to the completion of negotiations.

(b) The Government will consider information submitted to be current, accurate and complete if the data is current, accurate and complete as of 14 calendar days prior to the date it is submitted.

(c) If any reduction in the contract price under this clause reduces the price for items for which payment was made prior to the date of the modification reflecting the price reduction, the Contractor shall be liable to and shall pay the United States—

(1) The amount of the overpayment; and

(2) Simple interest on the amount of such overpayment to be computed from the date(s) of overpayment to the Contractor to the date the Government is repaid by the Contractor at the applicable underpayment rate effective each quarter prescribed by the Secretary of Treasury under 26 U.S.C.6621(a)(2).

(d) Failure to agree on the amount of the decrease shall be resolved as a dispute.

(e) In addition to the remedy in paragraph (a) of this clause, the Government may terminate this contract for default. The rights and remedies of the Government specified herein are not exclusive, and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this contract.

(End of clause)

[88 FR 62474, Sept. 12, 2023]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1023 

To repeal section 134 of the Clean Air Act, relating to the greenhouse 

gas reduction fund. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2023 

Mr. PALMER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To repeal section 134 of the Clean Air Act, relating to 

the greenhouse gas reduction fund. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION 

4 FUND. 

5 (a) REPEAL.—Section 134 of the Clean Air Act (42 

6 U.S.C. 7434)(relating to the greenhouse gas reduction 

7 fund) is repealed. 

8 (b) RESCISSION.—The unobligated balance of any 

9 amounts made available under section 134 of the Clean 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1023 IH

1 Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7434)(as in effect on the day before 

2 the date of enactment of this Act) is rescinded. 

3 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 60103 of 

4 Public Law 117–169 (relating to the greenhouse gas re5 duction fund) is repealed. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****The Bishop Ash Bed (MiddlePleistocene) and some older (Pliocene and Pleistocene) chemically andmineralogically similar ash beds in California, Nevada, and Utah**
 
Report | Plates: 0102
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:1675
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000965487
 
October 25, 2018
#### 49.405 Completion by another contractor.

If the surety does not arrange for completion of the contract, the contracting officer normally will arrange for completion of the work by awarding a new contract based on the same plans and specifications. The new contract may be the result of sealed bidding or any other appropriate contracting method or procedure. The contracting officer shall exercise reasonable diligence to obtain the lowest price available for completion.

[48 FR 42447, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 1746, Jan. 11, 1985; 50 FR 52429, Dec. 23, 1985]
#### Montrose Concrete Products Corp., Respondent, v Silverite Construction Company, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Also Known as Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, defendant Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland appeals (1) from *an*order of the Supreme Court, Westchester county, entered September 11, 1978, which granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment against it and (2) as limited by its brief, from so much of a further order of the same court, entered October 25, 1978, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination. Appeal from the order entered September 11, 1978 dismissed as academic. That order was superseded by the order granting reargument. Order entered October 25, 1978 affirmed insofar as appealed from. Plaintiff is awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to cover both appeals. Although the facts indicate an excusable default (see *A. G. Serv. Co. v Interboro Contrs.,*64 AD2d 880), appellant has failed to make the requisite showing of facts sufficient to establish that it has a meritorious defense (see *Renne v Roven,*29 AD2d 866). Mere self-serving conclusions that a meritorious defense exists do not suffice. Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
#### Rhetta Felton, Respondent-Appellant, v Emily M. Boxer et al., Appellants-Respondents.

In an action by a landowner, *inter alia,*to enjoin interference with an alleged easement of right of way, (1) the parties cross-appealed from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, dated February 22, 1978, which, *inter alia*(a) held that the plaintiff is the holder of a valid easement and right of way over the land in question and (b) granted defendant Emily Boxer the right to maintain a fence and an unlocked gate across the easement and right of way and (2) defendants purportedly appeal from an order of the same court dated December 30, 1977, which was entered upon a motion to reargue the decision upon which the judgment was based. Appeal by defendants from the order dated December 30, 1977 dismissed. No appeal lies from an order entered upon a *901motion to reargue a decision. Judgment affirmed. The plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs to cover both appeals. The record supports, by clear and convincing evidence, the trial court’s finding of an easement in favor of the plaintiff over the disputed dirt way. We find that the language of the reservation in the deed in question clearly and unequivocally established an easement in fee and not merely a right of way limited to the immediate grantor. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing defendant Emily Boxer to maintain only an unlocked gate across the road. In view of the hazard to public safety that a locked gate across the dirt way would pose, as well as the animosity between the parties, it was not a viable alternative (see *Lianza v Marx,*45 AD2d 1018, 1019). Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Mangano, JJ., concur.
IA 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 66 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau relating to ‘‘Small Business Lending Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B)’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 31, 2023 

Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas (for himself, Mr. BARR, and Mr. OGLES) submitted 

the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau relating to ‘‘Small Business Lending 

Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation 

B)’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Con4 sumer Financial Protection Bureau relating to ‘‘Small 

5 Business Lending Under the Equal Credit Opportunity 

6 Act (Regulation B)’’ (88 Fed. Reg. 35150), and such rule 

7 shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

WILLIAM SHUTT, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D22-3784 February 28, 2024 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge. Chris W. Altenbernd of Banker Lopez Gassler P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. VILLANTI, LaROSE, and SMITH, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      458
<ALLOWANCES>                                        39
<INVENTORY>                                          9
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   552
<PP&E>                                           6,580
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,849
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,345
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              827
<BONDS>                                            858
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           735
<OTHER-SE>                                         316
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,345
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,686
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,156
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  53
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    478
<INCOME-TAX>                                       182
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                296
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       296
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>