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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 89

To designate October 1993, as ‘‘Polish-American Heritage Month’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 6 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. SIMON (for himself, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr. SARBANES, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. METZENBAUM, Mr. RIEGLE, Mr. MITCHELL,

Mr. ROTH, and Mr. D’AMATO) introduced the following joint resolution;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate October 1993, as ‘‘Polish-American Heritage

Month’’.

Whereas the first Polish immigrants to North America were

among the first settlers of Jamestown, Virginia, in the

seventeenth century;

Whereas Kazimierz Pulaski, Tadeusz Kosciuszko, and other

Poles came to the British colonies in America to fight in

the Revolutionary War and to risk their lives and fortunes for the creation of the United States;

Whereas Poles and Americans of Polish descent have distinguished themselves by contributing to the development of

arts, sciences, government, military service, athletics, and

education in the United States;
2

•SJ 89 IS

Whereas the Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791, was modeled after the Constitution of the United States, is recognized as the second written constitution in history, and

is revered by Poles and Americans of Polish descent;

Whereas Poles and Americans of Polish descent take great

pride and honor in the greatest son of Poland, his Holiness Pope John Paul the Second;

Whereas Poles, Americans of Polish descent, and people everywhere applauded the efforts of Lech Walesa, Solidarity’s leader and current President of Poland, in fighting

for freedom, human rights, and economic reform in

Poland; and

Whereas the Polish American Congress is observing its fortyninth anniversary this year and is celebrating October

1993, as ‘‘Polish-American Heritage Month’’: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That October 1993, is designated ‘‘Polish-American Herit4 age Month’’, and the President of the United States is

5 authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling

6 upon the people of the United States to observe such

7 month with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Æ
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alector, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending December 31, 2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: March 26, 2019 |   |   | /s/ Calvin Yu                                                  |
|----------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   |   | Calvin Yu                                                           |
|                 |   |   | Vice President, Finance

(Principal Finance and Accounting Officer) |
427 A.2d 1226

#### Commonwealth v. Jones, Appellant.

Submitted September 13, 1979.

Murrel R. Walters, III, for appellant;

J. Michael Eakin, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before PRICE, WIEAND and VAN der VOORT, JJ.*

*

 Judge Donald E. Wieand is sitting by special designation.

Order affirmed.
# C_2014135EN.01004101.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/41

---

Action brought on 3 January 2014 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (Pianissimo)

(Case T-11/14)

2014/C 135/53

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Grundig Multimedia AG (Stansstad, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Walter, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 November 2013 given in Case R 441/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 November 2013 given in Case R 441/2013-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings, including those incurred before the OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings, including those incurred before the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Pianissimo’ for goods in Class 7 — Community trade mark application No 11 102 266

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the mark applied for

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
**Exhibit 31.3****Certification of Chief Executive Officer of Neenah Foundry Company pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) orRule 15d-14(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, Robert E. Ostendorf, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of Neenah Foundry Company,certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Neenah Foundry Company;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.DATE: February 14, 2008         /s/ Robert E. Ostendorf, Jr.   Robert E. Ostendorf, Jr.   President and Chief Executive Officer  
34
exv10w36



 






Exhibit 10.36




GUARANTY




     This GUARANTY is made as of October 27, 2006 by NOBLE CORPORATION, a Cayman Islands exempted
company limited by shares (the “Company”), for the benefit of Thomas L. Mitchell (the “Executive”);



WITNESSETH:




     WHEREAS, Noble Drilling Corporation, a Delaware corporation and an indirect, wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company (“Noble-Subsidiary”), has entered into an Employment Agreement with the
Executive dated as of the date hereof (the “Employment Agreement”); and



     WHEREAS, the Company desires to guarantee the performance by Noble-Subsidiary of its
obligations under the Employment Agreement, and the Board of Directors of the Company has
determined that it is reasonable and prudent for the Company to deliver this Guaranty and necessary
to promote and ensure the best interests of the Company and its Members;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the Company hereby irrevocably and
unconditionally guarantees, as primary obligor, the due and punctual performance by
Noble-Subsidiary of its agreements and obligations, all and singular, under the Employment
Agreement. This Guaranty shall survive any liquidation of Noble-Subsidiary or any of its
subsidiaries. This Guaranty shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Texas.



     The obligations of the Company hereunder shall be absolute and unconditional and shall remain
in full force and effect until the termination of the Employment Agreement or the complete
performance by Noble-Subsidiary of its obligations thereunder, irrespective of the validity,
regularity or enforceability of the Employment Agreement, any change or amendment thereto, the
absence of any action to enforce the same, any waiver or consent by the Executive or
Noble-Subsidiary with respect to any provision of the Employment Agreement, the recovery of any
judgment against Noble-Subsidiary or any action to enforce the same, or any other circumstances
that may otherwise constitute a legal or equitable discharge or defense of the Company. The
Company waives any right of set-off or counterclaim it may have against the Executive arising from
any other obligations the Executive may have to Noble-Subsidiary or the Company.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Agreement to be executed on its behalf by its
duly authorized officer as of the date first above set forth.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	NOBLE CORPORATION	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ MARK A. JACKSON
 

	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	Mark A. Jackson	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	President and CEO	 	 







1
United States Steel Corporation

– Minntac

Response to U. S. EPA Section 114 Request April 24, 2012
**Item 4** For the time period January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2011, if coal was used as a fuel source at the facility , provide documentation of the average sulfur content for coal used by each specific indurating furnace at the facility

. **Person(s): that pro vided information used or considered in responding to the question or**  **were consulted in the preparation of the response:** Teresa Simetkosky **Answer:**

**Year % Sulfur**  **2007** 0.5 **2008** 0.45 **2009** 0.43 **2010** 0.49 **2011** 0.47 Minntac is only

permitted to util ize coal as a fuel source in the kilns on L ine 6 & 7. Minntac and Keetac utilize the same coal source. The anal ys is of the % sulfur is performed in the Minntac Quality Assurance Laboratory

as a monthl y composite comprised of dail y samples

.
§ 1.6072-4 Time for filing other returns of income. ( a ) *Reports for recovery of excessive profits on Government contracts.* For the time for filing annual reports by persons completing Government contracts, see 26 CFR (1939) 17.16 (Treasury Decision 4906, approved June 23, 1939), and 26 CFR (1939) 16.15 (Treasury Decision 4909, approved June 28, 1939), as made applicable to section 1471 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 by Treasury Decision 6091, approved August 16, 1954 (19 FR 5167, C.B. 1954-2, 47).
( b ) [Reserved]
[T.D. 6908, 31 FR 16775, Dec. 31, 1966, as amended by T.D. 9849, 84 FR 9237, Mar. 14, 2019]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                     335,976
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               34,234
<ALLOWANCES>                                                20,000
<INVENTORY>                                                  1,037
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           563,738
<PP&E>                                                   3,098,287
<DEPRECIATION>                                           2,117,635
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          18,496,651
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    4,730,231
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                              4,455,318
<COMMON>                                                    16,399
<OTHER-SE>                                               9,291,703
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            18,496,651
<SALES>                                                     56,447
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            56,447
<CGS>                                                        2,948
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                2,948
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         5,870,501
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          32,447
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (5,819,130)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (5,819,130)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             31,977
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (5,787,153)
<EPS-BASIC>                                               (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               (0.06)



</TABLE>
#### § 1.475(b)-3 [Reserved]
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 1 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MARK WESLEY KELLEY, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 98-5176 RON WARD, Respondent-Appellee. (D.C. No. 97-CV-1007-B) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, BALDOCK , and HENRY , Circuit Judges. **
Petitioner Mark Wesley Kelly seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus asuntimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner contends that application of the oneyear statute of limitations in § 2244 constitutes an unconstitutional suspension of the writ under U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 2. He also contends that we should reconsider our recent2

decision in Hoggro v. Boone , 150 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 1998), wherein we set forth the proper method of calculating the limitations period under § 2244. Both arguments are foreclosed. The rule is well established in this circuit that one panel of the court cannot overrule another panel of the court. We are bound by the precedent established by a prior panel. E.g. , In re Miller , 55 F.3d 1487, 1489 (10th Cir. 1995). Thus, we have no occasion absent en banc review to reconsider our decision in Hoggro . Furthermore, we have previously held that, absent special circumstances not present in this case, the one-year limitation on filing a first habeas petition does not violate the Constitution’s Suspension Clause. Miller v. Marr , 141 F.3d 976, 977-78 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , 119 S. Ct. 210 (1998). Accordingly, we agree with the district court substantially for the reasons stated in its order of dismissal that the instant petition is time-barred. APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED. Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge
[Cite as State v. Hawkins, 104 Ohio St.3d 582 2004-Ohio-7124.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT, v. HAWKINS,

APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE. 

[Cite as State v. Hawkins, 104 Ohio St.3d 582, 2004-Ohio-7124.] 

Criminal law — Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and cause remanded for 

application of State v. Leach. 

(No. 2004-1299 — Submitted December 14, 2004 — Decided December 30, 

2004.) 

APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 

82465, 2004-Ohio-855. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted on Proposition of Law No. II. 

{¶ 2} The cross-appeal is not accepted. 

{¶ 3} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause is 

remanded for application of State v. Leach, 102 Ohio St.3d 135, 2004-Ohio-2147, 

807 N.E.2d 335. 

 MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON and O’DONNELL,

JJ., concur. 

 F.E. SWEENEY and O’CONNOR, JJ., dissent. 

__________________ 

 William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, Lisa Reitz 

Williamson and Brian Mooney, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee and 

cross-appellant. 

 Robert L. Tobik, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and John T. Martin, 

Assistant Public Defender, for appellant and cross-appellee. 

__________________
§ 1.55-1 Alternative minimum taxable income. ( a ) *General rule for computing alternative minimum taxable income.* Except as otherwise provided by statute, regulations, or other published guidance issued by the Commissioner, all Internal Revenue Code provisions that apply in determining the regular taxable income of a taxpayer also apply in determining the alternative minimum taxable income of the taxpayer.
( b ) *Items based on adjusted gross income or modified adjusted gross income.* In determining the alternative minimum taxable income of a taxpayer other than a corporation, all references to the taxpayer's adjusted gross income or modified adjusted gross income in determining the amount of items of income, exclusion, or deduction must be treated as references to the taxpayer's adjusted gross income or modified adjusted gross income as determined for regular tax purposes.
( c ) *Effective date.* These regulations are effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1993.
[T.D. 8569, 59 FR 60557, Nov. 25, 1994]
Exhibit 10.45

                                Letter Agreement
                        Amendment to Employment Agreement
               Between U.S. Gold Corporation and William W. Reid

     The Employment Agreement dated January 1, 1994 as Amended effective July
21, 1998 (the "Employment Agreement") between U.S. Gold Corporation, a Colorado
corporation (the "Employer") and William W. Reid (the "Employee") is hereby
amended effective as and from January 1, 2003.

     Whereas, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of
which are acknowledged, Employer and Employee hereby agree to Amend the
Employment Agreement as follows:

A.   Section 3.1 Compensation is amended to read as follows:

3.1 Compensation (a) Effective from January 1, 2003, as Compensation for
services rendered under this Agreement, the Employee shall receive a salary of
$225,000 per annum and such salary amount shall no longer be subject to
automatic annual increases based upon increases in the Consumer Price Index. (b)
Employee's salary shall be paid in equal semi-monthly installments in accordance
with Employer's normal practices. (c) The salary provided in this subsection
shall in no way be deemed exclusive and shall not prevent Employee from
participating in any other compensation or benefit plan of Employer.

Except as specifically set forth in this Amendment, all provisions of the
Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREFOF, Employer and Employee have executed this Amendment
effective as of the date first set forth above.

/s/ John W. Goth
EMPLOYER
U.S. Gold Corporation, a Colorado corporation
By John W. Goth, Member of Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors

/s/ William W. Reid

EMPLOYEE
William W. Reid
#### § 1.281-1 In general.

Section 281 provides special rules for the computation of the taxable incomes of a terminal railroad corporation and its shareholders when the terminal railroad corporation, as a result of taking related terminal income into account, reduces a charge which was made or which would be made for related terminal services furnished to a railroad corporation. Section 281 and paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 1.281-2 provide that the “reduced amount” described in paragraph (c) of § 1.281-2 is not includable in gross income of the terminal railroad corporation, is not treated as a dividend or other distribution to its railroad shareholders, and is not treated as an amount paid -or incurred by the railroad shareholders to the terminal railroad corporation. Section 281 and paragraph (a)(2) of § 1.281-2 provide that no deduction otherwise allowable to a terminal railroad corporation shall be disallowed as a result of the “reduced amount” described in paragraph (c) of § 1.281-2. Section 1.281-3 defines the terms *terminal railroad corporation, related terminal income, related terminal services, agreement,* and *railroad corporation.* Section 1.281-4 describes the effective dates and special rules for application of section 281 to taxable years ending before October 23, 1962.

[T.D. 7356, 40 FR 23732, June 2, 1975]