alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 4.45

                                                                   June 20, 2003

To the Holders
      of the 6% / 12% Senior Secured Notes
      (formerly the 20% Senior Secured Notes)

      We hereby seek your approval for the extension of the maturity date of the
6% / 12% Senior Secured Notes from July 1, 2003 until September 30, 2003. This
extension will enable us to satisfy the Notes in a manner that meets the needs
of both the Noteholders and the Company.

      Our cash resources are currently inadequate to allow us to pay the Notes
at maturity in cash. Further, though we have the right to pay the Notes and
certain similar debt obligations in Common Stock at maturity, at the $.30
closing price of our shares on May 30, 2003 this would have required issuance of
15,857,000 shares, a number which exceeds the 12,633,370 shares now outstanding
and also exceeds the number of shares available for issuance. Accordingly, we
have submitted to our stockholders for approval a proposed amendment to our
Certificate of Incorporation increasing the authorized shares of Common Stock.

      At the Annual Meeting of Stockholders we are also seeking approval of the
creation of a new class of "blank check" Preferred Stock. The existence of a
blank check Preferred Stock would also allow us to offer payment of the debt
through issuance of a security which would have rights more beneficial to the
investors and superior to the Common Stock, which we would otherwise be forced
to use. For example, the Preferred Stock could have significant liquidation
preferences over the Common Stock, and could be convertible at the option of the
holder. Thus investors would be given, for the first time, the opportunity to
have liquidity on their investment. To protect investors in the Notes against
the extraordinary dilution which would occur through issuance of the tremendous
number of shares of Common Stock now required to satisfy the debt, there could
also be limitations on the magnitude of sales of the Common Stock issued in
conversion at any time, depending on market conditions. Of course, these are
just illustrations. Whether the investors will prefer to receive Preferred Stock
instead of Common Stock and the terms of the Preferred Stock are yet to be
discussed. For that reason, some time is necessary to allow these discussions to
occur.

      Accordingly, to allow time for the orderly payment of the Notes and to
avoid the adverse consequences of a default, we would appreciate your agreeing
to the extension by executing and returning the attached copy of this letter.

                                          Very truly yours,


                                          Leonard Osser
                                          Chairman & Chief Executive Officer

Accepted and approved this
     day of June 2003

[Note Holder]

by:
   ----------------------------
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20879 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LEE WAYNE SIMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-235-1

-------------------- June 19, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Lee Wayne Simpson pleaded guilty to counts 1 and 2 of an indictment charging him with bank fraud and has appealed his sentence. Simpson argues that the district court erred by finding that he was a "leader" in the offense under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). Simpson contends that he should have been considered, instead, to be a "supervisor" under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). We review the district court's finding for clearNo. 01-20879 -2-

error. See United States v. Valencia , 44 F.3d 269, 272 (5th Cir. 1995). Simpson argues that "the accomplice testimony suggested everyone described in the [presentence report] was trying to minimize their participatory role" and that their statements that Simpson had a broader role than that of a supervisor should not be credited because of Simpson's illiteracy. This argument is without merit. A defendant challenging the findings in the presentence report has the burden of demonstrating that the information in the presentence report is "materially untrue, inaccurate, or unreliable." United States v. Angulo , 927 F.2d 202, 205 (5th Cir. 1991). Simpson did not present any evidence. The fact that the evidence may have been susceptible of a different interpretation is not sufficient to show that the district court's finding was clearly erroneous. See United
States v. West , 58 F.3d 133, 137 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2297

LOUISE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00091-RAJ-FBS)

Submitted: May 8, 2009 Decided: May 26, 2009

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louise Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Kent Pendleton Porter, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Louise Johnson appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(b). We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Johnson v. Astrue , No. 2:08-cv00091-RAJ-FBS (E.D. Va. Sept. 18, 2008). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 171

To authorize the production of records by the Permanent Subcommittee

on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 20 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 2), 1993

Mr. FORD (for Mr. MITCHELL (for himself and Mr. DOLE) submitted the

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize the production of records by the Permanent

Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on

Governmental Affairs

Whereas the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of

the Committee on Governmental Affairs has been conducting an investigation of allegations of abuses in the

Pell Grant financial assistance program;

Whereas several law enforcement entities have requested access to records of the Subcommittee’s investigation;

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States

and rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate can, by administrative or judicial process, be taken

from such control or possession but by permission of the

Senate; and
2

SRES 171 IS

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or

in the possession of the Senate is needed for the promotion of justice, the Senate will take such action as will

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Chairman and Ranking Minority

2 Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investiga3 tions of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, acting

4 jointly, are authorized to provide, to law enforcement and

5 regulatory entities requesting access, records of the sub6 committee’s investigation of alleged abuses in the Pell

7 Grant program.

Æ
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7987 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 30, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and 

Entrepreneurship 

AN ACT 

To require plain language and the inclusion of key words 

in covered notices that are clear, concise, and accessible 

to small business concerns, and for other purposes. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 7987 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Plain Language in 

3 Contracting Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ACCESSIBILITY AND CLARITY IN COVERED NOTICES 

5 FOR SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Each covered notice shall be writ7 ten— 

8 (1) in a manner that is clear, concise, and ac9 cessible to a small business concern; and 

10 (2) in a manner consistent, to the extent prac11 ticable, with the Federal plain language guidelines 

12 established pursuant to the Plain Writing Act of 

13 2010 (5 U.S.C. 301 note). 

14 (b) INCLUSION OF KEY WORDS IN COVERED NO15 TICES.—Each covered notice shall, to the maximum extent 

16 practicable, include key words in the description of the 

17 covered notice such that a small business concern seeking 

18 contract opportunities using the single governmentwide 

19 point of entry described under section 1708 of title 41, 

20 United States Code, can easily identify and understand 

21 such covered notice. 

22 (c) RULEMAKING.—Not later than 90 days after the 

23 date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of 

24 the Small Business Administration shall issue rules to 

25 carry out this section. 

26 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

HR 7987 RFS

1 (1) COVERED NOTICE.—The term ‘‘covered no2 tice’’ means a notice pertaining to small business 

3 concerns published by a Federal agency on the sin4 gle Government-wide point of entry described under 

5 section 1708 of title 41, United States Code. 

6 (2) SMALL BUSINESS ACT DEFINITIONS.—The 

7 terms ‘‘Federal agency’’ and ‘‘small business con8 cern’’ have the meanings given those terms, respec9 tively, in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 

10 U.S.C. 632). 

11 SEC. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH CUTGO. 

12 No additional amounts are authorized to be appro13 priated to carry out this Act or the amendments made 

14 by this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 29, 2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
exv10wff



 





EXHIBIT 10(ff)




Schedule of Certain Executive Officers who are Parties

to the Individual Grantor Trust Participation Agreements in the Form Attached

as Exhibit 10(a) to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

For the Period Ended September 30, 2003




Christopher M. Connor

John L. Ault

Sean P. Hennessy

Thomas E. Hopkins

Timothy A. Knight

John G. Morikis

Steven J. Oberfeld

Thomas W. Seitz

Louis E. Stellato

Robert J. Wells
III

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 237

To memorialize DEA agent Richard Fass.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 1 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 1994

Mr. DECONCINI (for himself and Mr. D’AMATO) submitted the following

resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To memorialize DEA agent Richard Fass.

Whereas Richard Fass, a Drug Enforcement Administration

agent, was slain in the line of duty in Phoenix, Arizona,

last night;

Whereas, to date, 26 DEA agents have been killed in the line

of duty;

Whereas over 13,000 names have been placed on the Law

Enforcement Memorial honoring law enforcement officers

from all across the country who have been killed in the

line of duty;

Whereas the entire law enforcement family shares in the pain

and the grief when a fellow officer is lost;

Whereas it helps to ease the pain and suffering when fellow

officers are present to share the loss;
2

SRES 237 ATS

Whereas current law permits active military officers to travel

in an official capacity to funerals of fellow colleagues

killed in the line of duty;

Whereas the nation mourns the loss of this fine, young, and

dedicated law enforcement officer; and

Whereas the Senate sends its condolences to the family of

Richard Fass: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Administration should submit leg2 islation to the Congress which authorizes Federal law en3 forcement officers to be excused from duty without loss

4 or reduction in pay, leave, or credit for service, to attend

5 the funeral of a fellow Federal law enforcement officer who

6 was killed in the line of duty and, in the interim, the At7 torney General should exercise her authority to permit

8 DEA personnel to attend the funeral or related services

9 of agent Richard Fass.

Æ
Exhibit 31.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer of Neenah Enterprises, Inc. pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or
Rule 15d-14(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Neenah Enterprises, Inc.2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in the
case of an annual report) that has materially affected or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control 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 financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Jeffrey S. JenkinsJeffrey S. JenkinsCorporate Vice President  Finance
and Interim Chief Financial Officer
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 04-203 

________________________________________________________________________ 

PEACE CORPS 

 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and AZERBAIJAN 

Signed at Baku October 8, 2003 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
AZERBAIJAN 

 Peace Corps 

Agreement signed at Baku October 8, 2003; 

 Entered into force February 3, 2004.
|  (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor 

550 South Tryon Street 

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2015, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate  Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-NXS2 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.

 

 

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 
|  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A |  (logo) Together we’ll go far

  |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
#### William F. Brennan et al. *v.*Town of West Haven

*Charles G. Albom,*on the motion.

Submitted November 29

decided December 17, 1963

The motion by the plaintiffs to strike certain of the defendant’s assignments of error in the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County is granted.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 22, 2016.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-15-00634-CV

POWELL DORFAYE, ET AL, Appellant 

V.

BRECKENRIDGE AT CITY VIEW APARTMENTS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1064270 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

This is an appeal from a judgment signed July 20, 2015. On August 12, 

2015, this court abated the appeal because appellant petitioned for voluntary 

bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of 

Texas, under cause number 15-33972. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.2. 

Through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system, 

the court learned that the bankruptcy case was closed on October 21, 2015. The 
2

parties failed to advise this court of the bankruptcy court action. 

On October 6, 2016, this court issued an order stating that unless any party 

to the appeal filed a motion demonstrating good cause to retain the appeal within 

twenty days of the date of the order, this appeal would be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). No response was filed. 

Accordingly, we reinstate the appeal and order it dismissed. 

 PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and Donovan.
#### § 1.401(a)-12 Mergers and consolidations of plans and transfers of plan assets.

A trust will not be qualified under section 401 unless the plan of which the trust is a part provides that in the case of any merger or consolidation with, or transfer of assets or liabilities to, another plan after September 2, 1974, each participant in the plan would receive a minimum benefit if the plan terminated immediately after the merger, consolidation, or transfer. This benefit must be equal to or greater than the benefit the participant would have been entitled to receive immediately before the merger, consolidation, or transfer if the plan in which he was a participant had then terminated. This section applies to a multiemployer plan only to the extent determined by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. For additional rules concerning mergers or consolidations of plans and transfers of plan assets, see section 414(l) and § 1.414(l)-1.

[T.D. 7638, 44 FR 48195, Aug. 17, 1979]
§ 1.53-1 Limitation based on amount of tax. ( a ) *General rule* — ( 1 ) *Targeted jobs credit.* For taxable years beginning after December 31, 1978, the amount of the targeted jobs credit allowed by section 44B (as amended by the Revenue Act of 1978) shall not exceed 90 percent of the tax imposed by chapter 1, reduced by the credits enumerated in section 53(a).
( 2 ) *New jobs credit.* For taxable years beginning before January 1, 1979, the amount of the new jobs credit allowed by section 44B (as in effect prior to enactment of the Revenue Act of 1978) shall not exceed the tax imposed by chapter 1, reduced by the credits enumerated in section 53(a).
( b ) *Special rule for 1978-79 fiscal year.* In the case of a taxable year beginning before January 1, 1979, and ending after that date, the sum of the targeted jobs credit (determined without regard to the tax liability limitation in paragraph (a)(1) of this section) and the new jobs credit (determined without regard to the tax liability limitation in (a)(2) of this section) shall not exceed the tax imposed by chapter 1, reduced by the credits enumerated in section 53(a).
(Secs. 44B, 381, and 7805 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (92 Stat. 2834, 26 U.S.C. 44B); 91 Stat. 148, 26 U.S.C. 381(c)(26); 68A Stat. 917, 26 U.S.C. 7805)
[T.D. 7921, 48 FR 52906, Nov. 23, 1983]
# C_2016111EN.01000301.xml

| 29.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 17 December 2014 — Manfred Naderhirn

(Case C-581/14)

(2016/C 111/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Manfred Naderhirn

Applicant:

Interveners: Jungwirth und Fabian OHG, Krenn KG, Michael Weber, Übermaßer KG, Gunhild Mayr

Interveners:

By order of 15 October 2015, the Court ruled:

EU law must be interpreted as precluding a situation in national law which is characterised by, first, the lack of domestic legal provisions governing the manner in which a national court must take account of the fact that it follows from a judgment of the Court of Justice that a national provision must be held to be contrary to EU law when it is dealing with cases pending before it and, second, the existence of rules of domestic law which provide that the court in question is unconditionally bound by another national court’s interpretation of EU law, in so far as, on account of such a rule of domestic law, the national court is precluded from ensuring that the primacy of EU law is duly guaranteed by taking, in the context of its jurisdiction, all the necessary measures to that effect.

---