alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
427 A.2d 1233

#### Holly v. Recht, Appellant.

*644Submitted November 14, 1979.

John M. Silvestri, for appellant;

John E. Wall, for appellee.

Before SPAETH, HOFFMAN and VAN der VOORT, JJ.

The order of the lower court is hereby affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #11787 and #11788]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

 Amendment 2.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-1845-DR), dated 06/16/2009.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding.                    

*Incident Period:*                         04/27/2009 through 05/23/2009.                    

*Effective Date:*                         07/24/2009.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         08/17/2009.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         03/16/2010.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Arkansas, dated 06/16/2009, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Pope.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-18231 Filed 7-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 Certification 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) 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), each of the
undersigned officers of Great Western Land and Recreation, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the Company), do hereby certify, to such officers knowledge,
that: The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (Form
10-QSB) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in
the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: August 13, 2004
    
    /s/ Jay N. TorokJay N. TorokChief Executive OfficerDated: August 13, 2004
    
    /s/ Ron OConnorRon OConnorSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
 (A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-71,052]

Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated in response to a petition filed on June 6, 2009 by a Washington State agency representative on behalf of workers of Clarity Technologies, Inc., Auburn Hills, Michigan.

The petition has been deemed invalid. A State agency representative or One-Stop Office Operator/Partner may not file a petition on behalf of workers of a firm located in another State. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC this 16th day of July, 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-18179 Filed 7-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange
Act; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Zix Corporation.
 /s/ RICHARD D. SPURRName:
    Richard D. SpurrTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ SUSAN K. CONNERName:
    Susan K. ConnerTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
exv10w6w2



 





EXHIBIT 10.6.2



Schedule identifying substantially identical agreements, between Visteon Corporation (“Visteon”)
and each of the persons named below, to the Revised Change in Control Agreement and Amendment to
Revised Change of Control Agreement constituting Exhibits 10.6 and 10.6.1, respectively, to the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Visteon for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006.




Name




Michael F. Johnston




Donald J. Stebbins




James F. Palmer




John Donofrio




Dorothy L. Stephenson




William G. Quigley III
exv10w63



 





Exhibit 10.63




FORM OF RETENTION AGREEMENT



Because you are an important part of the management and professional team of Texas Eastern Products
Pipeline Company, LLC (“Company”), the general partner of TEPPCO Partners, L.P. (the
“Partnership”), it has been determined that it is in the best interests of the Partnership and its
unit holders to offer you appropriate incentives to continue to focus on the business of the
Partnership during the shared-service integration process between the EPCO, Inc. (“EPCO”) family of
entities and the Company. Only those employees who are selected shall be eligible to participate
in this retention program.



The retention program is implemented through individualized agreements entered into between EPCO
and each participant which becomes effective with respect to a participant immediately upon such
participant and an appropriate officer of EPCO executing same.



This Retention Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into effective                     , 2006,
(“Effective Date”) between EPCO and                      (“Employee”).



WHEREAS, EPCO desires to enter into this Agreement with Employee to provide a method for providing
retention payment to encourage continued high performance and to encourage Employee to remain
employed through the shared-service integration process.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration thereof and of the covenants hereafter set forth, the parties
hereby agree as follows:



Provided Employee shall have remained as an active fulltime employee of EPCO from the Effective
Date through December 31, 2007 without interruption, EPCO shall pay to Employee in cash, on or
before January 31, 2008, a gross amount equal to the product of the amount of Employee’s base
annual salary on December 31, 2007 times                     %, less applicable withholding (“Retention Payment”).



In addition, Employee must maintain a satisfactory level of performance during the retention period
to be eligible for the Retention Payment. In the event Employee is involuntarily terminated due to
poor performance, no Retention Payment shall be made to Employee. Employee is not eligible for a
Retention Payment if Employee voluntarily terminates employment, is terminated for ‘cause’ or
retires on or before December 31, 2007.



Employee understands that the terms of this Agreement are confidential and Employee shall not
disclose either the existence of this Agreement nor the terms hereof. Should Employee violate the
confidentiality provisions of this Agreement, Employee shall not be eligible for the Retention
Payment.



EPCO, Inc.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	 

	 	 	 	 

Employee:
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Arthur Sweeney

Submitted January 16

decided January 16, 1968

*Arthur*Sweeney, pro se, on the motion.

The motion by the defendant for a reduction of bail in the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County at Waterbury is dismissed.
609 P.2d 1097

#### The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Cathleen Gay TOWLE, aka Cathleen Gay Riddell, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 1895.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

April 4, 1980.

Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer III and Greg A. McCarthy, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

Thikoll, Johnston & Rosen by Edith A. Croxen, Tucson, for appellant.

OPINION

HOWARD, Judge.

Does the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule apply to probation revocation proceedings? That is the question presented in this appeal.

Appellant’s position was that certain evidence seized at her residence should have been suppressed because the affidavit in support of the search warrant was constitutionally defective. At the revocation hearing, the trial court ruled that a probationer cannot seek suppression of illegally obtained evidence.

The majority of courts hold that the exclusionary rule does not apply to parole and probation revocation proceedings. *U. S. v. Frederickson,*581 F.2d 711 (8th Cir. 1978); *U. S. v. Winsett,*518 F.2d 51 (9th Cir. 1975); *U. S. v. Farmer,*512 F.2d 160 (6th Cir. 1975) ; *U. S. v. Brown,*488 F.2d 94 (5th Cir. 1973); *U. S. v. Hill,*447 F.2d 817 (7th Cir. 1971); *State v. Sears,*553 P.2d 907 (Alaska 1976) ; *In re Martinez,*1 Cal.3d 641, 463 P.2d 734, 83 Cal.Rptr. 382 (1970), cert. den. 400 U.S. 851, 91 S.Ct. 71, 27 L.Ed.2d 88; *People*v. *Atencio,*525 P.2d 461 (Colo.1974); *Croteau*v. *State,*334 So.2d 577 (Fla.1976); *People v. Dowery,*62Ill.2d 200, 340 N.E.2d 529 (1975); *Dulin v. State,*346 N.E.2d 746*398(Ind.App.1976); *State v. Caron,*334 A.2d 495 (Me.1975); *State v. Thorsness,*165 Mont. 321, 528 P.2d 692 (1974); *Commonwealth*v. *Davis,*234 Pa.Super. 31, 336 A.2d 616 (1975); *State v. Spratt,*386 A.2d 1094 (R.I.1978). The rationale of the decisions is that since the exclusionary rule is operative in any event in all criminal prosecutions, the furtherance of its policy objectives achieved by extending the rule to parole or probation revocation hearings is insufficient to justify the concomitant impairment of the proper functioning of the probation-parole system. See also *State v. Robledo,*116 Ariz. 346, 569 P.2d 288 (App.1977).

We have recognized that the exclusionary rule does apply to probation revocation proceedings where police officers who conducted the search under a defective warrant were aware of the suspect’s status as a probationer. *State v. Shirley,*117 Ariz. 105, 570 P.2d 1278 (App.1977). We adopted the rationale of *Verdugo v. U. S.,*402 F.2d 599 (9th Cir. 1968), cert. den. 402 U.S. 961, 91 S.Ct. 1623, 29 L.Ed.2d 124 (1971), where the court applied the exclusionary rule because there was an incentive for police misconduct. The *Shirley*rationale is not applicable here as the police did not know appellant was a probationer and thus had no incentive to carry out an illegal search. We agree with the trial court’s determination that the exclusionary rule should not apply under these circumstances.

Affirmed.

HATHAWAY, C. J., and RICHMOND, J., concur.
exv10w2



 



EXHIBIT 10.2



[LETTERHEAD OF KPMG S.A.]



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference of our
report dated February 20, 2003, with respect to the consolidated
balance sheets of Total Fina Elf S.A. and its subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of income, cash flows and changes
in shareholders’ equity for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2002, and the related financial
statement schedule, all expressed in euros (which report appears in
the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 20-F of Total
Fina Elf S.A.), in the following registration statements:





	 	(i)	 	The Post-Effective Amendment
No. 1 on Form F-3 to Form F-4 Registration Statement
(File no. 333-10154) for Total Fina Elf S.A., filed with the SEC on
September 8, 2000;
	 
	 	(ii)	 	The Form S-8 Registration
Statement (File no. 333-13024) for Total Fina Elf S.A., filed with the
SEC on December 27, 2000;
	 
	 	(iii)	 	The Form S-8 Registration
Statement (File no. 333-13214) for Total Fina Elf S.A., filed with the
SEC on February 28, 2001; and
	 
	 	(iv)	 	The Form S-8 Registration
Statement (File no. 333-103815) for Total Fina Elf S.A., filed with the
SEC on March 14, 2003.
	 
	 






	 	 
	 	
/s/   KMPG Audit
	 	

	 	
KPMG Audit
	 	A division of
KPMG S.A.




 




Paris, La Défense, France

March 31, 2003
# C_2016364EN.01005201.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/52

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 –Cat v Commission

(Case F-117/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes - Decision recognising bonus annuities applying the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))

(2016/C 364/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Michel Cat (Cotonou, Benin) (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz and D. Verbeke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by: G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions to add years of pensionable service acquired by the applicant in the European Union pension scheme on application of the new general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 56.

---
# C_2016270EN.01004101.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2016 — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen v EUIPO — Meissen Keramik (MEISSEN)

(Case T-789/14) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark MEISSEN - Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks MEISSEN, MEISSENER PORZELLAN, HAUS MEISSEN, Meissen and Meissener Porzellan - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Distinctive character and reputation of the earlier marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 270/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH (Meissen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Meissen Keramik GmbH (Meissen) (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and K. Gennen, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2014 (Joined Cases R 1182/2013-4 and R 1245/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen and Meissen Keramik.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.

1

---
§ 884.6180 Reproductive media and supplements. ( a ) *Identification.* Reproductive media and supplement are products that are used for assisted reproduction procedures. Media include liquid and powder versions of various substances that come in direct physical contact with human gametes or embryos (including water, acid solutions used to treat gametes or embryos, rinsing solutions, sperm separation media, supplements, or oil used to cover the media) for the purposes of preparation, maintenance, transfer or storage. Supplements are specific reagents added to media to enhance specific properties of the media (e.g., proteins, sera, antibiotics, etc.).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls) (mouse embryo assay information, endotoxin testing, sterilization validation, design specifications, labeling requirements, biocompatibility testing, and clinical testing). The device, when it is phosphate-buffered saline used for washing, and short-term handling and manipulation of gametes and embryos; culture oil used as an overlay for culture media containing gametes and embryos; and water for assisted reproduction applications, is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 884.9.
[63 FR 48436, Sept. 10, 1998, as amended at 85 FR 44188, July 22, 2020]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7739 

To require the implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols at the 

northern border of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 20, 2024 

Mr. BABIN (for himself, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. OGLES, Mr. 

POSEY, Mr. SELF, Mr. BAIRD, Mr. CLINE, Mr. TIFFANY, and Mr. 

GROTHMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require the implementation of the Migrant Protection 

Protocols at the northern border of the United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Remain in Canada Act 

5 of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF MPP AT THE NORTHERN 

7 BORDER. 

8 The Secretary of Homeland Security shall, as of the 

9 date of enactment of this Act, begin implementation of 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7739 IH

1 the Migrant Protection Protocols in accordance with the 

2 memorandum of Secretary of Homeland Security Nielsen 

3 entitled ‘‘Policy Guidance for Implementation of the Mi4 grant Protection Protocols’’, dated January 25, 2019, ex5 cept that such protocols shall be implemented with regard 

6 to the border between the United States and Canada. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.5

                                                               Execution Version

                         DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT

This agreement (this "Agreement"), dated as of July 29, 2002, is made by and
between Biopure Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Carl W.
Rausch (the "Executive").

                                    RECITALS

The Executive and the Company entered into a Deferred Compensation Agreement
("Deferred Compensation Agreement") dated as of August 8, 1990, pursuant to
which the Executive agreed to defer incentive compensation in the amount of
$700,000 ("Compensation") plus interest ("Interest") thereon at the "Prescribed
Rate" as defined therein. Payment of the Compensation was deferred twice for
consideration paid by the Company, the last such deferral being by action of the
board of directors of the Company taken June 24, 1999; such board action
deferred payment of the Compensation and Interest until July 31, 2003 and
established the Prescribed Rate from and after July 24, 1999 at 4.71% annually.

The Executive and the Company have agreed to enter into an employment agreement
as of the date hereof ("Employment Agreement").


                                    AGREEMENT

Now therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein
contained and other good and valuable consideration, including but not limited
to the Executive's benefits under the Employment Agreement, the Company and the
Executive hereby agree as follows:

     1.  The Executive hereby cancels, forgives and foregoes entitlement to and
         receipt of all Interest accrued through the date of this Agreement.

     2.  The Company agrees to accelerate payment of the Compensation (i.e.,
         $700,000) to the date hereof. Payment of the Compensation shall be
         made in full as follows:

                  $233,100, to be retained as withholding tax; and

                  $466,900, to be applied to the payment of outstanding
                  indebtedness from the Executive to the Company;

     3.  The Executive represents that he expects that his marginal income tax
         rate for federal and state taxes for the year 2002 will be
         approximately 33.3%.

<PAGE>


     4.  The Deferred Compensation Agreement and all amendments thereto and the
         parties' rights, powers and obligations thereunder are hereby
         terminated, and any liabilities thereunder are hereby mutually
         released.

In witness whereof this Agreement has been executed by or on behalf of the
parties hereto, as an instrument under seal as of the date first above written.


Biopure Corporation


By: ________________________                      ____________________________
         Title                                    Carl W. Rausch