alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.1.6






Exhibit 10.1.6




AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE

TERRA INDUSTRIES INC.

SUPPLEMENTAL DEFERRED

COMPENSATION PLAN





     WHEREAS, Terra Industries Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Terra Industries Inc.
Supplemental Deferred Compensation Plan as amended effective as of July 26, 2000 (the “Plan”); and



     WHEREAS, in light of the restrictions imposed on deferred compensation plans by the American
Jobs Creation Act of 2004, it is now considered desirable to provide for the discontinuance of
active participation in the Plan and the cessation of Participant deferrals under the Plan;



     NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to the power reserved to the Company by Section
12.04 of the Plan, the Plan be and it hereby is amended by adding the following amendment,
effective as of December 31, 2004:




	 	1.	 	Discontinuance of Active Participation. Effective as of January 1,
2005, each Participant in the Plan as of that date will continue as a
Participant in the Plan, subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan,
as modified by this Amendment No. 4. However, notwithstanding any
provision of the Plan to the contrary, employees of the Company who
were not Participants in the Plan on December 31, 2004 shall not be
eligible to become Participants after that date.






	 	2.	 	Discontinuance of Participant Deferrals. Effective for plan
years beginning after December 31, 2004, no additional Participant deferrals
will be made to the Plan. However, Participants’ account balances
under the Plan shall continue to be credited with interest and earnings
in accordance with Section 5.02 of the Plan.






	 	3.	 	Vesting of Employer Matching Contributions. Any Employer Matching
Contributions credited to a Participant on or before December 31,
2004, shall continue to vest in accordance with Section 5.04 of the
Plan.






	 	4.	 	Trust Agreement. This Amendment No. 4 shall not affect the terms
and conditions of the Trust Agreement under Terra Industries Inc.
Deferred Compensation Plan(s) with The Security National Bank of
Sioux City, Iowa, made effective as of January 1, 1995.




 









 











     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment No. 4 to be
executed by its duly authorized officer as of the 24th day of December, 2004



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	TERRA INDUSTRIES INC.

 	 
	 	/s/ Francis G. Meyer
 	 
	 	By Francis G. Meyer
 Its Senior Vice President
#### Billy LIVINGSTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. PP-216.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 2, 1979.

Billy Livingston, in pro per.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Since the record does not conclusively refute appellant’s claim, the denial of appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing is reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on appellant’s allegation that his plea was coerced by threats made by his court-appointed attorney. *Bryant v. State,*355 So.2d 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Acting C. J. and ERVIN, J., concur.

BOOTH, J., dissents.
#### § 408.28 Increased premiums due to the income-related monthly adjustment amount (IRMAA).

Beginning January 1, 2007, Medicare beneficiaries must pay an income-related monthly adjustment amount in addition to the Part B (SMI) standard monthly premium, plus any applicable increase for late enrollment or reenrollment, if the beneficiary's modified adjusted gross income exceeds the threshold amounts specified in 20 CFR 418.1115.

[73 FR 36469, June 27, 2008]
HomeMontenegro

# Montenegro

76 items

        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO): DRL Anti-Corruption and Election Integrity Programs in the Balkans	  February 3, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the Western Balkans	  October 20, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		The Department of State Marks Construction of the New U.S. Embassy in Podgorica	  September 23, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the United States-Montenegro Economic Dialogue	  September 16, 2021 
        -    Bilateral Relations Fact Sheet  		U.S. Relations With Montenegro	  August 27, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Investment Climate Statements: Montenegro	  July 21, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Montenegro Statehood Day	  Antony J. BlinkenJuly 13, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Trafficking in Persons Report: Montenegro	  July 1, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		The Stability and Security of the Western Balkans	  Antony J. BlinkenJune 8, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Report on International Religious Freedom: Montenegro	  May 12, 2021 

previous page123456…8next page

Back to Top
EXHIBIT 23.02

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Numbers 33-14356 on Form S-8 dated May 15, 1987, 33-53188 on Form S-8 dated October 13, 1992, 33-59673 on Form S-8 dated May 30, 1995, 333-39347 on Form S-8 dated November 3, 1997 and 333-65315 on Form S-8 dated October 5, 1998, of our report dated February 11, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of Moto Photo, Inc. and subsidiaries included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.

 

 

Dayton, Ohio

March 28, 2002
# C_2006103EN.01003001.xml

| 29.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/30

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3596 — ThyssenKrupp/Howaldswerke-Deutsche Werft)

(2006/C 103/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 10 December 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3596. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3596. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
Exhibit 10.6


 


Administration
Service Agreement


 


This Administration Service Agreement (the “Agreement”)
dated this 15th day of January, 2021 is between Ace Global Business Acquisition Limited, herein referred to as “Service
Provider” and Ace Global Investment Limited, herein referred to as “Customer”.


 


Service Provider has agreed
to provide services to the Customer on the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement, while Customer is of the opinion that
Service Provider has the proper and necessary qualifications, experience and abilities to provide services to Customer.


 


Therefore in consideration
of the matters described above, the receipt and sufficiency of which consideration is hereby acknowledged, the Customer and the
Service Provider agree as follows:


 


		1.	Scope of Work





 


The Service Provider
is to provide the Customer with the following services (the “Services”): Company Administration.


 


The services will include
any other tasks which the Customer and the Service Provider may agree on.


 


	2.	Term of Agreement



 


This Agreement will
begin on January 15th, 2021 and will remain in full force and effect until the completion of the Services. This Agreement
may be extended by mutual written agreement of the parties.


 


	3.	Termination



 


If either party seeks termination
of this Agreement, the terminating party must provide a 30 days written notice to the other party.


 


	4.	Compensation



 


The Customer will
provide compensation to the Service Provider of $10,000 per month for the services rendered by the Service Provider as required
by this Agreement. Compensation is payable at the completion of services.


 




     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly affixed
their signatures under hand on this 15th day of January, 2021.


 





	Ace Global Business Acquisition Limited	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Wong Eugene Tu	 
	Name:	WONG Eugene Tu	 
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer	 



 











	Ace Global Investment Limited	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Chan Yuen Wah
	 
	Name:	CHAN Yuen Wah	 
	Title:	Director
§ 11.66 What are potential legal consequences of not complying with the requirements of this part? ( a ) *Civil or criminal judicial actions.* Failure to comply with the requirements of this part, issued under section 402(j) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 282(j)), is a prohibited act under one or more provisions of section 301(jj) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(jj)): ( 1 ) Failure to submit the certification required by section 402(j)(5)(B) of the Public Health Service (42 U.S.C. 282(j)(5)(B)) that all applicable requirements of section 402(j) have been met, or knowingly submitting a false certification under section 402(j)(5)(B), is a prohibited act under section 301(jj)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
( 2 ) Failure to submit clinical trial information required under section 402(j) of the Public Health Service Act is a prohibited act under section 301(jj)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
( 3 ) Submission of clinical trial information under section 402(j) that is false or misleading in any particular is a prohibited act under section 301(jj)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
( b ) *Civil monetary penalty actions.* Any person who violates section 301(jj) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is subject to civil monetary penalties under section 303(f)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(f)(3)).
( c ) *Grant funding actions.* Under section 402(j)(5)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 282(j)(5)(A)), if an applicable clinical trial is funded in whole or part by the Department of Health and Human Services, any required grant or progress report forms must include a certification that the responsible party has made all required registration and results submissions. If it is not verified that the required registration and results clinical trial information for each applicable clinical trial for which a grantee is the responsible party has been submitted, any remaining funding for a grant or funding for a future grant to such grantee will not be released. If the head of an HHS agency verifies that a grantee has not submitted such required clinical trial information, the agency head will provide notice to the grantee of the non-compliance and allow the grantee 30 days to correct the non-compliance and submit the required clinical trial information.
#### § 2.62 Order not applicable to records disclosed without consent to researchers, auditors, and evaluators.

A court order under the regulations in this part may not authorize persons who meet the criteria specified in §§ 2.52(a)(1)(i) through (iii) and 2.53, who have received patient identifying information without consent for the purpose of conducting research, audit, or evaluation, to disclose that information or use it to conduct any criminal investigation or prosecution of a patient. However, a court order under § 2.66 may authorize use and disclosure of records to investigate or prosecute such persons who are holding the records.

[89 FR 12629, Feb. 16, 2024]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Holy See Secretary of State Cardinal Parolin

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Holy See Secretary of State Cardinal Parolin							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

December 7, 2022

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman met with the Holy See’s Secretary of State, Cardinal Parolin today in Vatican City. Deputy Secretary Sherman thanked Cardinal Parolin for the Holy See’s work to ensure food security and for the Pope’s recent statements in support of the people of Ukraine. They discussed shared concerns over insecurity and the cholera outbreak in Haiti, concern for the human rights situation in Iran, ongoing developments in Venezuela, the situation in Lebanon, relations with the People’s Republic of China as well as Russia’s ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine. Deputy Secretary Sherman and Cardinal Parolin underscored the strong bilateral partnership between the United States and Holy See and the shared desire for peace and security around the world.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDeputy Secretary TripDeputy Secretary of StateHoly SeeOffice of the Spokesperson

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
# North Korea

439 items

        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 18, 2023	  Matthew MillerDecember 18, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		DRL Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO): DRL FY23 DPRK Human Rights and Accountability Programs – Statements of Interest	  December 18, 2023 
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		DRL Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO): DRL FY23 DPRK Access to Information Programs – Statements of Interest	  December 18, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 14, 2023	  Matthew MillerDecember 14, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Taking Additional Sweeping Measures Against Russia	  December 12, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 11, 2023	  Matthew MillerDecember 11, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Inaugural United States-Japan-Republic of Korea Trilateral Diplomatic Working Group Meeting on  Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Cyber Activities	  December 7, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 6, 2023	  Matthew MillerDecember 6, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – December 4, 2023	  Matthew MillerDecember 4, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Media Note  		Special Envoy on North Korean Human Rights Issues Turner’s Trip to Los Angeles and Honolulu	  December 1, 2023 

previous page1…56789…44next page

Back to Top
#### David K. MILLER, Jr., a/k/a David Kelly Miller, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1153.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 31, 1979.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Glenn H. Mitchell, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAUKSCH, J., and SCHOONOVER, JACK R., Associate Judge, concur.

ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with opinion.

ANSTEAD, Justice,

concurring specially:

One of the errors complained of here was the failure of the trial court to strike the testimony of an identification witness, the victim of the robbery involved, who had conversed with the prosecuting attorney about the identity of the appellant, then present in the courtroom, prior to testifying. The witness had been unable to identify the appellant prior to trial. Before testifying, according to the prosecutor, the witness pointed to the appellant seated in the courtroom and said, “That’s the boy that did it, isn’t it?” The prosecutor confirmed that appellant was indeed “the boy that did it.” According to the appellant, the witness asked the prosecutor, “Is that the guy who did it, right there?” and the prosecutor responded affirmatively. Regardless of which version is true, I think it was error for the prosecutor to have confirmed the identity of the appellant to the witness. However, I believe under the circumstances here that such error was harmless. The conduct of the prosecutor and the failure of the witness, to identify the appellant prior to trial were brought out before the jury. In addition, two alleged accomplices of appellant testified, completely corroborating the victim’s testimony. And although both of the accomplices received favorable treatment from the state in exchange for their testimony, this information was fully disclosed to the jury. Accordingly, I concur in the affirmance of appellant’s conviction.
# Turkey

396 items

        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Turkey	  June 10, 2020 
        -    		Specific Instance Between International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) and Cargill Incorporated Regarding Operations in Turkey	  March 20, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Turkey	  March 11, 2020 
        -    Report  		Turkey	  July 11, 2019 
        -    Report  		Turkey	  June 21, 2019 
        -    Report  		Turkey	  June 20, 2019 
        -    		Turkey (Türkiye)	  April 25, 2019 
        -    Report  		Turkey	  March 13, 2019 
        -    Report  		Turkey	  July 19, 2018 
        -    Report  		Turkey	  June 28, 2018 

previous page1…3435363738…40next page

Back to Top
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merchants Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Janet P. Spitler, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, 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: (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 results of operations of the Company.  By:/s/ Janet P. SpitlerJanet P. Spitler
Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer
Principal Accounting OfficerMay 9, 2011Date
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

TERRY BRAY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-50032

D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00685-ABC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2012** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Terry Bray appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion

for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether a district court has jurisdiction to

FILED

DEC 31 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-50032

modify a sentence under section 3582. See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728,

730 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

Bray contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment

750, which amended the drug quantity table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 for offenses

involving crack cocaine. However, Bray was sentenced as a career offender

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Therefore, his sentence was not based on a

Guidelines range that has been lowered, and the district court lacked jurisdiction to

modify his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Wesson, 583 F.3d at 731-32.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2006074EN.01001803.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/18

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 — Arizona Chemical BV and Others v Commission

(Case T-369/03) (1)

1

(Directive 67/548/EEC - Refusal to declassify rosin as a dangerous substance - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - Action for damages - Limitation - Plea of illegality - Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 74/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties:

Applicants: Arizona Chemical BV (Huizen, Netherlands), Eastman Belgium BVBA (Kallo, Belgium), Resinall Europe BVBA (Bruges, Belgium), and Cray Valley Iberica, SA (Madrid) (represented by C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by X. Lewis and F. Simonetti, Agents)

Defendant:

Interverners in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by T. Pynnä and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents)

Interverners in support of the defendant:

Application for

first, annulment of an act of the Commission rejecting the applicants' request for the withdrawal of rosin from the list of sensitising substances set out in Annex I to Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234), and, second, for compensation for the damages suffered

Operative part of the Order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the defendant.

| 3. | The intervener shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The intervener shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 10.1.2004.

1

---
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Charles WHITTINGTON, II v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penn.

No. 65304.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1979.

In re Charles Whittington, applying for remedial writ. Parish of Lafayette.

Writ denied. See also evidentiary hearing of March 8,1979, filed with *State ex rel. Whittington,*La., 367 So.2d 386.