alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.12


                    TEXAS EASTERN PRODUCTS PIPELINE COMPANY
                         1994 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
                                  AMENDMENT 1


         Pursuant to its authority under Section 8 of the Texas Eastern
Products Pipeline Company 1994 Long Term Incentive Plan (the "Plan"), the
Committee, identified in Section 2 of the Plan, hereby amends, effective
January 1, 1995, Section 6(a) of the Plan in its entirety to read as follows:

                  "(a) Nature. Each Award shall be subject to all the terms and
         conditions of the Plan, and shall consist of: (i) the right and option
         to purchase from the Company the aggregate number of L.P. Units
         specified by the Committee and set forth on the respective Award
         Certificate (the "Certificate") at the per unit price set forth on the
         Certificate, which shall be equal to 100% of the Fair Market Value of
         an L.P. Unit on the date the Award is granted (the "Option Price"),
         subject to the adjustment provision set forth in Section 9
         (collectively, the "Option"), and (ii) related performance units
         described in Subsection (c) in a number set forth on the Certificate,
         which shall be equal to twice the aggregate number of L.P. Units
         covered by the Option or such lesser number specified by the
         Committee, subject to the adjustment provision set forth in Section 9
         (collectively, "Performance Units"), provided, that the Committee may
         specify that an Award shall not include Performance Units. In no event
         shall the aggregate Awards to any Grantee result in more than one
         hundred thousand (100,000) L.P. Units being issued, or two hundred
         thousand (200,000) Performance Units being granted, to any Grantee,
         subject to the adjustment provision set forth in Section 9."

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment to the Plan is executed this 16th day of
January, 1995 on behalf of the Committee.

                                                      COMMITTEE


                                                      By:  W. L. Thacker
#### § 514.10 Effective date.

The provisions of §§ 514.1 through 517.9 shall be effective with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1956, and before January 1, 1967, or with respect to dividends, interest, and royalties paid before August 11, 1968.

[T.D. 6986, 34 FR 136, Jan. 4, 1969]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                         2,778
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,778
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          159,603
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       143,234
<OTHER-SE>                                     (302,837)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,778
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               8,031
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,031)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.00
        



</TABLE>
#### FRANK CROCKER, TRUSTEE, v. THE UNITED STATES.

[49 C. cas. R., 85; 240 U. S. R., 74.]

*On the plaintiff’s appeal.*

The Postal Device & Lock Co. entered into a contract to furnish the Post Office Department certain satchels for a period of four years from July 1, 1902. Some time after the contract had been in force and the work partly performed, investigation developed conspiracies in the Post Office Department to de*485fraud the Government, and that department ceased to order satchels under the contract here involved and withheld the money then due the contract company for satchels theretofore furnished the department. This suit was brought to recover the money so retained, less the cost of satchel straps, which had not been furnished as required by the contract. The defendants interpose a plea of fraud.

The court below decides:

In order to involve the plaintiff in the admitted wrongdoings of others connected with it in the execution of the contract it must appear that it knew, either actually or constructively, of what was to be done and what was done.

Where a contractor in anywise participates in the machinations of his agents in their conspiracies with an officer of the Government to share to any extent in the profits of the company, it is estopped to assert any claim for compensation under its contract.

Acts of manifest bad faith or breaches of duty toward the corporation on the part of one of its officers are not binding upon it.

Where an agent goes beyond the scope of his authority and commits a wrong or fraud to accomplish a purpose designedly his own, the principal is not liable.

The defendants can not be charged with a default in performance due to the remissions of a duly authorized agent of the plaintiff acting within the scope of his employment. The loss must fall upon the plaintiff.

Where the contractor did not perform his contract but committed a breach thereof, such breach is not cured by an offer to make restitution after the fact.

Where a suit is predicated upon a written contract it is within the province of the court to award judgment as upon a *quantum meruit.*

The decision of the court below is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Van Devanter

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 31,1916.
Exhibit 13.2



Certification
by the Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Shaochai Yang,
Chief Financial Officer of ZK International Group Co., Ltd. (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | a. | the Company’s annual report on Form 20-F/A for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | b. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Dated July 8, 2019





|By: | /s/ Shaochai Yang              | 
|--- | ------------------------------ | 
|    | Name: Shaochai Yang            | 
|    | Title: Chief Financial Officer |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6660

JAMES HARRISON SINGLETARY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge. (CA-02-1430-9-22) Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 21, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Harrison Singletary, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Col umbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James Harrison Singletary seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Singletary has not made the requisite showing. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 351.35 What do I need to know about interest rates, penalties, and redemption values for Series EE bonds with issue dates of May 1, 2005, or thereafter? ( a ) *Fixed rate or fixed rate of interest.* Fixed rate or fixed rate of interest means the rate of interest for a Series EE savings bond with an issue date of May 1, 2005, or thereafter, established by the Secretary or the Secretary's designee.
( b ) *Determination of fixed rate of interest.* ( 1 ) The Secretary or the Secretary's designee determines the fixed rate of interest, which is established for the life of the bond, including the extended maturity period, unless, prior to the beginning of such maturity period, the Secretary either announces a different fixed rate applicable to the extended maturity period, or we expressly amend the terms and conditions applicable to the extended maturity period.
( 2 ) The Secretary's determination of rates of interest and savings bond redemption values is final and conclusive.
( c ) *Announcement of fixed rate.* ( 1 ) The Secretary or the Secretary's designee will furnish a fixed rate of interest in announcements published each May 1 and November 1. The effective date of the rates will be the first day of the month of the announcement.
( 2 ) If the regularly scheduled date for the announcement is a day when the Treasury is not open for business, then the Secretary will make the announcement on the next business day; however, the effective date of the rates remains the first day of the month of the announcement.
( 3 ) The Secretary may announce rates at any other time.
( 4 ) The most recently announced fixed rate applies only to bonds purchased during the six months following the announcement, or for any other period of time announced by the Secretary.
( d ) *Monthly accruals.* Interest accrues on the first day of each month; that is, we add the interest earned on a bond during any given month to its value at the beginning of the following month. The accrued interest compounds semiannually.
( e ) *Interest penalty for Series EE bonds redeemed less than 5 years after issue date.* If you redeem a bond with an issue date of May 1, 2005, or thereafter, less than five years following the issue date, we reduce the overall earning period from the issue date by three months. However, the redemption value of a bond subject to the 3-month interest penalty shall not be reduced below the issue price. This penalty does not apply to bonds redeemed 5 years or more after the issue date.
( f ) *Redemption value of Series EE bonds at original maturity* — ( 1 ) *Definitive bond.* At original maturity, the redemption value of a definitive bond shall not be less than the face amount/denomination of the bond.
( 2 ) *Book-entry bond.* At original maturity, the redemption value of a book-entry bond shall not be less than double the purchase price of the bond.
[70 FR 17289, Apr. 9, 2005]
EX-10.1



 





Exhibit 10.1




VERAMARK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

2007 MANAGEMENT BONUS PLAN





	 	1.	 	Adoption. Veramark Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby adopt the Management
Bonus Plan for the calendar year ending December 31, 2007 (the “Plan”). The Plan will be
administered by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the
“Compensation Committee”). The Compensation Committee shall have full authority and discretion
to interpret any provision of the Plan.
	 
	 	2.	 	Company Contribution Schedule and Maximum Payout. The Company’s maximum payout under
the Plan will be the percentage contribution set opposite the reported Operating Income for
2007 below, before: (i) extraordinary items, (ii) taxes, and (iii) any expense for the
contribution under the Plan. The maximum payout is hereinafter referred to as the “Bonus
Pool”.





	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Contribution to	 	 
	Operating Income for 2007	 	Bonus Plan	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	$500,000 — $599,999

	 	 	5.0	%	 	 
	$600,000 — $699,999

	 	 	8.0	%	 	 
	$700,000 — $799,999

	 	 	10.0	%	 	 
	$800,000 — $899,999

	 	 	12.0	%	 	 
	$900,000 — $999,999

	 	 	14.0	%	 	 
	$1,000,000 — $1,149,999

	 	 	16.0	%	 	 
	$1,150,000 — $1,299,999

	 	 	18.0	%	 	 
	Over $1,300,000

	 	 	20.0	%	 	 







	 	3.	 	Plan Participants. Participants in the Plan shall include Corporate Officers and key
managers of the Company as designated by the Compensation Committee, on the recommendation of
the President and CEO.
	 
	 	4.	 	Allocation of Plan Funds. If the Operating Income objective is achieved for 2007, the
President and CEO shall present to the Compensation Committee, a schedule identifying the names
of the Participants, including Corporate Officers, being recommended for bonuses, the rationale
for each award, and the share of the Bonus Pool recommended for each such Participant. The
total payout recommended by the President and CEO may be less than, but not more than, the Bonus
Pool.
	 
	 	•	 	With respect to all Plan Participants, except for Corporate Officers, bonus awards will
be awarded at the discretion of the President and CEO.
	 
	 	•	 	Bonus awards for individual Corporate Officers will be approved by the Compensation
Committee, in its discretion.
	 
	 	•	 	The actual amount of any bonus paid to any participant will be determined and allocated
by the President and CEO, or by the Compensation Committee, as applicable, in their
respective discretion, and all such determinations will be final.




 









 






	 	5.	 	Timing of Plan Payments and Expense Provision. No payment will be made under the Plan
until after the 2007 audit is completed. Upon completion of the audit, any award shall be
paid within thirty (30) days of the completion date. Appropriate provision will be made for
Plan contribution expenses throughout the year.





March 2, 2007
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-22-00148-CV

BRANDON FORD, Appellant

V.

RANDELL CUTBURTH AND BRENDA 

CUTBURTH, D/B/A CUTBURTH 

CONSTRUCTION, Appellees

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 415th District Court

of Parker County (CV19-0598)

February 9, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

It is further ordered that appellant Brandon Ford shall bear the costs of this 

appeal, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Please post this proposal from Air Choice One.
#### § 16.45 Deposit in Treasury of United States.

All amounts collected pursuant to this part shall be deposited as miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury of the United States, except as provided in 31 U.S.C. 3806(g).
#### Cecilia A. Merceron, Appellant, *against*Anderson Fowler, Respondent.

(Decided January 5th, 1880.)

An order of the general term of the Marine Court reversing an order of the special term of that court granting a new trial and ordering judgment on the verdict is a final determination, and the judgment entered on it is in effect the judgment of the general term of the Marine Court, and an appeal from it can he taken to the general term of this court.

Motion for reargument.

Joseph F. Daly, J.

The appeal should not have been dismissed. The order of the general term of the Marine Court reversing the special term order granting a new trial, and ordering judgment for the defendant on the verdict, was a final determination, and the judgment so entered was in effect the judgment of the general term. Appeals from such orders have been entertained. *(Schwartz*v. Oppold, 74 N. Y. 807.) An appeal to this court on a similar principle was entertained in *The Manufacturers'*& *Builders' Bank*v. *Kiersted*(6 Daly, 160), where the general term of the Marine Court, on an appeal from an order denying a motion to strike out a ■ emurrer as frivolous, reversed the order, and ordered judg*537ment against defendant on account of the frivolousness of the demurrer.

A reargument should be granted, the remittitur having been returned to this court. An order should be entered placing the cause on the calendar of the (January) general term for argument.

Van Hoesen, J.

This appeal ought not to have 0been dismissed. It is within the 'principle of *Caughey*v. *Smith*(47 N. Y. 244). There is a judgment of the Marine Court, entered in pursuance of the order of its general term; and an appeal was regularly taken from it, which appeal is now before us. As the Marine Court general term has already passed upon the case, it is difficult to see why it should be called upon to review a second time the proceedings of the trial term.

The' judgment is to all intents and purposes the judgment of general term.

It is said that the cause was, after the dismissal of the appeal by the May general term of this court, remitted to the Marine Court. It appears that the remittitur and the record have been returned to this court, so that there is no objection to the reargument of the case.

Charles P. Daly, Ch. J., concurred.
39876.

#### HAMBY v. HAMBY.

Decided January 24, 1963.

*256*J. Paxson Amis, James Maddox,*for plaintiff in error.

*Pittman & Kinney, H. E. Kinney, Charles Pannell,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The motion for summary judgment was based on the pleadings and the evidence adduced on the prior trials, the judgments of this court and the affidavit of counsel for the defendant that the evidence on another trial would be no different from that adduced on the first two trials. On the hearing of the motion for summary judgment no showing was made that any additional or different evidence would be adduced on a third trial and the motion was not, according to the record, controverted in any manner.

In support of his position, that the trial court erred in granting the summary judgment, the plaintiff contends that the second appearance of the case before this court (on demurrer), established the law of the case and that if he proved his case as laid a verdict for him would be authorized, and that a comparison of the petition as amended and the testimony of the parties would demand a finding that every material allegation of the petition was proved. The plaintiff further contends that the ruling on the third appearance of the case before this court, where it was held that the evidence on the second trial did not authorize a verdict for the plaintiff, is not the law of the case because the court did not then follow the law of the case as *257established on the second appearance when the petition was held to be good as against general demurrer. The same contentions were made on the third appearance of the case before the court (103 Ga. App. 826, 833) and it was there pointed out why such contentions were not meritorious, and such holding also became the law of the case.

Under the record in the case the defendant was entitled to a summary judgment, for there was no genuine issue of fact remaining in the case after each side had an opportunity to present his case, and as shown above the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. See *Studstill v. Aetna Cas. &c. Co.,*101 Ga. App. 766 (115 SE2d 374); *Scales v. Peevy,*103 Ga. App. 42 (118 SE2d 193).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 315.28 Recovery or receipt of bond before or after relief is granted. ( a ) *Recovery prior to granting relief.* If a bond reported lost, stolen, destroyed, or not received, is recovered or received before relief is granted, the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, WV 26101, must be notified promptly.
( b ) *Recovery subsequent to granting of relief.* A bond for which relief has been granted is the property of the United States and, if recovered, must be promptly submitted to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, WV 26101, for cancellation.
### Request for Informatio n Vidutube Production s, Inc (FAA-2015-3837) 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Dear Mr. Howe: This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

− 2015

− 3837). This information is necessary for the Fede ral Aviation Administrati on (FAA) to process your p etition. Sent : Monday , December 21, 2015 9:23 AM To: v idutubecom@gmail.com

z Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Op erations Manual (MPTOM) wh ich is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closedset filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your inte ntion by the requested response date listed below. Please submit the additional informati on (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information has been submitted, plea se also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comm ent tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. I f you want us to process your request any further, we mu st receive the information de scribed above by January 4, 2016. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions, please feelfree to contact me at (202) 267-2999. FAA Office of Rulemaking