alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 21.6240 Medical treatment, care and services. ( a ) *General.* A participant in a vocational training program or receiving employment assistance shall be furnished medical treatment, care and services which VA determines are necessary to develop, carry out and complete the veteran's plan. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(b)(2))
( b ) *Scope of services.* The services which may be furnished include the medical treatment, care and dental services described in part 17 of this chapter. In addition, the following services may be authorized even if not included or described in part 17: ( 1 ) Prosthetic appliances, eyeglasses, and other corrective or assistive devices;
( 2 ) Services to a veteran's family as necessary for the effective rehabilitation of the veteran;
( 3 ) Special services (including services related to blindness and deafness) including: ( i ) Language training, speech and voice correction, training in ambulation, and one-hand typewriting;
( ii ) Orientation, adjustment, mobility and related services; and
( iii ) Telecommunications, sensory and other technical aids and devices. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(b)(2))
( c ) *Periods of eligibility.* A veteran is eligible for the services described in paragraph (b) of this section during: ( 1 ) Evaluation;
( 2 ) Rehabilitation to the point employability;
( 3 ) Employment services; and
( 4 ) Other periods, to the extent that services are needed to begin or continue in any of the periods described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section. Such periods include, but are not limited to, those when services are needed to facilitate reentry into training following: ( i ) Interruption; or
( ii ) Discontinuance because of illness or injury.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(b)(2))
§ 21.340 Introduction. ( a ) *General.* VA may approve leaves of absence under certain conditions. During approved leaves of absence, a veteran in receipt of subsistence allowance shall be considered to be pursuing a rehabilitation program. Leave may be authorized for a veteran during a period of: ( 1 ) Rehabilitation to the point of employability;
( 2 ) Extended evaluation; or
( 3 ) Independent living services.
( b ) *Election of subsistence allowance.* If a veteran elects to receive subsistence allowance and payment of rehabilitation services by VA, he or she may be authorized leave of absence under §§ 21.342 through 21.350.
( c ) *Election of benefits at the chapter 30 rate.* If a veteran elects to receive a subsistence allowance paid at the chapter 30 rate, the effect of absences is determined under §§ 21.7139 and 21.7154.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1508(f) and 1510)
[49 FR 40814, Oct. 18, 1984, as amended at 54 FR 4285, Jan. 30, 1989; 57 FR 57109, Dec. 3, 1992]
###### Editorial Note on Part 457

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

#### § 457.1207 Information requirements.

The State must provide, or ensure its contracted MCO, PAHP, PIHP, PCCM, and PCCM entities provide, all enrollment notices, informational materials, and instructional materials related to enrollees and potential enrollees in accordance with the terms of § 438.10 of this chapter, except that the terms of § 438.10(c)(2), (g)(2)(xi)(E), and (g)(2)(xii) of this chapter do not apply and that references to enrollee rights and protections under part 438 should be read to refer to the rights and protections under subparts K and L of this part. The State must annually post comparative summary results of enrollee experience surveys by managed care plan on the State's website as described at § 438.10(c)(3) of this chapter.

[89 FR 41285, May 10, 2024]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7


                                AMENDMENT TO THE

                              AMENDED AND RESTATED

                            STOCKHOLDERS' AGREEMENT


         This Amendment dated September 22, 2003 (the "Amendment") amends the
Amended and Restated Stockholders' Agreement by and among Nicholas Anderson,
Anthony Caputo, Philip Elkus, Stephen Shulman, Performance Control, LLC, Summit
Energy Ventures, LLC and Power Efficiency Corporation dated June 14, 2002 (the
"Agreement").

         WHEREAS, the parties to this Amendment executed the Agreement on June
14, 2003;

         WHEREAS, the parties to this Amendment desire to remove Stephen Shulman
as a party to the Agreement;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions herein
contained, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:

         1)       Stephen Shulman is hereby removed as a party to the Agreement;

         2)       The terms of the Agreement shall continue in full force and
                  effect as if the Agreement was originally executed without
                  Stephen Shulman as a party;

                    [Signature page to immediately follow.]


<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
duly executed on the date first written above.

PERFORMANCE CONTROL, LLC                     POWER EFFICIENCY CORPORATION

By:                                          By:
   --------------------------------             --------------------------------
   Phillip Elkus, Managing Member               Richard Koch, President


SUMMIT ENERGY VENTURES, LLC

By: Northwest Power Management, Manager

    By:
       ---------------------------
       Steven Strasser, President



-----------------------------------          -----------------------------------
Anthony Caputo, Individually                 Nicholas Anderson, Individually
1155 Colonial Way                            1536 208th Street
Bridgewater, NJ 08807                        Bayside, NY 08807



-----------------------------------          -----------------------------------
Philip Elkus, Individually                   Stephen Shulman, Individually
2488 Orchard Lake Road                       5807 Fox Hollow Court
Farmington Hill, MI 48334                    Ann Arbor, MI 48105





Signature page to the Amendment to the Amended and Restated Stockholders'
Agreement dated September 22, 2003.
**Exhibit 31(a)****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)**I, Gregory B. Kalush, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Interphase Corporation (the “Company”);  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such an internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Company’s board of directors:(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: May 14, 2007 Signature:  /s/ Gregory B. Kalush    Chief Executive Officer
#### Kaylor v. Baran

*George H. Rowley,*for plaintiff.

*Cyril T. Garvey,*for defendant.

April 10, 1956.

Rodgers, P. J.,

This matter comes before the court on plaintiff’s objections to certain interrogatories served on him by defendant under R. C. P. 4006. Plaintiff contends that the answers to the interrogatories could have, no possible relevancy. In such a matter we believe the burden is on plaintiff to establish the right to refuse to answer but that: “In applying the concept of relevance, the court is bound by the established principles relating to the relevance of evidence offered at a trial”: 5 Anderson Pennsylvania Civil Practice, 277.

The action involved is one of trespass wherein plaintiff asks to recover damages for loss of use of his motor truck during the time necessary to effect repairs. There are three types of interrogatories complained of. Plaintiff first is directed to state in interrogatories *56811, 12, 16, 22, 23 and 28, Ms gross and net income for the year 1954 and to submit Federal income tax returns for that period. It is the opinion of the court that the information here requested can have no possible relevance to the subject matter on the action. Such income figures may be, of course, completely relevant in a personal injury case where one is claiming loss of earnings or reduction of earning power, but here the gross income and net earnings may depend on matters entirely unrelated to this issue and at this time we decline to direct plaintiff to answer.

Interrogatories 24, 25 and 27 should be answered. They pertain to hauling done by plaintiff for the third party in question during the very time plaintiff claims the loss of use of his truck. It is clearly relevant to aid in determining whether or not there was a demand for hauling by the Reed Company and what profit per load was made during that time.

’ Interrogatories 29 and 30 ask whether plaintiff had I. C. C. or P. U. C. permits for the truck involved in the accident. Our Supreme Court has held that:

> “ ‘. . . since the law prohibits under a penalty the doing of business by unlicensed brokers, contracts providing for the payment of commissions to such persons are opposed to good morals and public policy and cannot be enforced’ ”: Bollinger v. Widmann Brewing Corporation, 339 Pa. 289 at 294.

We believe that there is a possibility that this principle of law may have some application in this case, and therefore, we direct plaintiff to answer.

*Order*

And now, April 10, 1956, plaintiff’s objections to interrogatories numbered 11, 12, 16, 22, 23 and 28 are sustained and the objections to interrogatories numbered 24, 25, 27, 29 and 30 are overruled and plaintiff is directed to answer the same.
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SECTION 906


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Jeffrey S. Levin, the Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of SL INVESTMENT CORP. (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:





• the Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2021 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-K”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


• the information contained in the Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2021 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: March 21, 2022/s/ Jeffrey S. LevinJeffrey S. LevinChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)





* The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          17,993
<SECURITIES>                                    20,886
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,254
<ALLOWANCES>                                       637
<INVENTORY>                                      9,928
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,812
<PP&E>                                          28,008
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,895
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,925
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,337
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,923
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,665
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,925
<SALES>                                         37,668
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,668
<CGS>                                           19,980
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,441
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    29
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   141
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,737
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,116
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,621
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,621
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .54
        

</TABLE>
#### McKnight v. Blakely

*John Himebaugh,*for plaintiffs.

*Brooks, Curtze & Gent,*for defendants.

*163October 25, 1955.

Evans, P. J.,

This matter is before us on a petition to join State Automobile Insurance Association as party plaintiff in the above-entitled action.

Ordinarily this request would be refused for the reason that under automobile insurance companies’ indemnity contract they have the right to proceed in their own interest and that of the assured under the assured’s name without the knowledge of their coverage being available to a jury in case of trial. However, defendants’ attorney, John G. Gent, received a letter dated December 17, 1954, from the Assistant Pennsylvania Claim Manager of the State Automobile Insurance Association advising him that this company had not retained attorney John W. Himebaugh to represent the insurance company on its subrogation claim in the amount of $1,302.

This, of course, does not affect plaintiffs’ employment of John W. Himebaugh to represent them insofar as their interests are concerned but raises the serious question as to whether or not any settlement or trial between the original parties would terminate the obligation to the State Automobile Insurance Association under its subrogation claim.

We conclude that by the order which follows we can and will protect defendants on the point which gives them concern and at the same time protect plaintiffs’ insurance carrier under its notice of subrogation and decision to employ separate counsel.

And now, to wit, October 25, 1955, it is ordered and decreed that if within 15 days the State Automobile Insurance Association causes its own counsel to enter an appearance in the above entitled action to represent it in the matter of any settlement or in case of trial, the petition by defendants to join the State Automobile Insurance Association as party plaintiff filed March 14, 1955, is refused; in event the above portion of our *164order is not complied with within 15 days, the rule to show cause granted March 14, 1955, is made absolute, and the prothonotary is directed to enter on his records the State Automobile Insurance Association as party plaintiff.
#### City of Demopolis *v.*Atkeison.

*Violating Municipal Ordinance.*

(Decided April 4, 1912.

58 South. 684.)

*Appeal and Error; Record; Dismissal.*— Where the record fails to show that the court was organized and held at a time and • place designated by law, and presided over by an officer authorized by law, the record fails to show a court properly organized and held, and hence, a judgment rendered by such court will not sustain an appeal.

Appeal from Marengo Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. E. J. Gilder.

The city of Demopolis prosecuted Charles A. Atkeison for a violation of its ordinance, and from an adverse judgment the city appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

C. L. Kelly, and B. G. Wilson, for appellant.

Couhsed discuss the errors assigned, together with citation *279of authority to sustain their contention, but in view of the opinion it is not deemed necessary to here set them out, as they do not brief the point decided.

C. K. Abrahams, for appellee.

The record fails to show the proper court presided over by a proper officer, and hence, the judgment rendered will not support an appeal. — 147 Ala. 274.

PELHAM, J.

The appeal in this case purports to be from the law and equity court of Marengo county, but the record does not show any organization of the court from the judgment of which the appeal is prosecuted. For failure to show by the record that the court was held at the time and place designated by law and presided over by an officer authorized by law, the appeal must be *dismissed.*-Pensacola *A.*& *W. Ry. Co. v. Big Sandy Iron Co.,*147 Ala. 274, 41 South. 418; *Tom Grantham v. State,*3 Ala. App. 168, 57 South. 1025; *Thomas v. Daniel Bros.,*42 South. 623*f McPherson v. Wiggins,*40 South. 961;2 2 Cyc. 1033; 3 Cent. Dig. Appeal & Error, §§ 2282, 2283.

Appeal dismissed.
# L_2013224EN.01S00302.xml

| 22.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 224/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 224/s3

---

NOTE TO READERS — WAY OF REFERRING TO ACTS

As of 1 July 2013 the way of referring to acts has changed.

During a transitional period this new practice will coexist with the previous one.

---
Exhibit 99.1



Fifth Amendment
Dated as of May 29, 2007
to
Amended and Restated
Receivables Sale Agreement
Dated as of July 20, 2004

This Fifth Amendment (the "Amendment"), dated as of May 29,
2007, is entered into among IPL Funding Corporation (the "Seller"), Windmill
Funding Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Windmill"), the Liquidity Provider
listed on the signature page hereof (the "Liquidity Provider") and ABN AMRO Bank
N.V., as agent for Windmill and the Liquidity Provider (the "Agent").

Reference is hereby made to that certain Amended and Restated Receivables Sale
Agreement, dated as of July 20, 2004 (as amended, supplemented or otherwise modified through
the date hereof, the "Sale Agreement"), among the Seller, Windmill, the Liquidity
Provider and the Agent.  Terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein which are defined in the
Sale Agreement or the other Transaction Documents (as defined in the Sale Agreement) shall have the
same meaning herein as defined therein.

For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

Section 1.	Upon execution by the parties hereto in the space
provided for that purpose below the Sale Agreement shall be, and it hereby is, amended as
follows:

The date "May 29, 2007" appearing in clause (d) of the defined
term "Liquidity Termination Date" appearing in Schedule I of the Sale
Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the date "May 27, 2008."

Section 2.	The Sale Agreement, as amended and supplemented
hereby or as contemplated herein, and all rights and powers created thereby and thereunder or under
the other Transaction Documents and all other documents executed in connection therewith, are in all
respects ratified and confirmed.  From and after the date hereof, the Sale Agreement shall be
amended and supplemented as herein provided, and, except as so amended and supplemented, the Sale
Agreement, each of the other Transaction Documents and all other documents executed in connection
therewith shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 3.	This Amendment may be executed in two or more
counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original but both or all of which, when taken
together, shall constitute but one instrument.

Section 4.	This Amendment shall be governed and construed in
accordance with the internal laws of the State of Illinois.



In Witness Whereof, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed and
delivered by their duly authorized officers as of the date first above written.

ABN AMRO Bank N.V., as the Agent and as the Liquidity Provider

By:

Title:

By:

Title:

Windmill Funding Corporation

By:

Title:

IPL Funding Corporation

By:

Title:
Exhibit 10.75


 


	
   

  	
  July 2, 2003

  



 


	
  Dan Schlotterbeck

  c/o Russ Berrie and Company, Inc.

  111 Bauer Drive

  Oakland, NJ 07436

  	
   

  



 


Dear Dan:


 


As you know, the Board of Directors of the Company has authorized the
exploration of a possible sale of the Company, although no decision to effect a
sale has been made and there can be no assurance that it will occur or as to
the timing thereof.


 


The Board of Directors believes that your continued service as an
executive and effective participation in the exploration of a possible sale is
important to the Company.  Accordingly,
the Board of Directors has determined that if an unaffiliated purchaser
acquires substantially all of the Company’s outstanding stock or assets through
a negotiated transaction on or before December 31, 2003, and you remain
employed by the Company through the consummation of that transaction, you will
be awarded a special bonus of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000).  (If for any reason you are not employed by the
Company when the sale is consummated, you will not be entitled to any payment
under this letter.)


 


The bonus contemplated above is in addition to any other compensation
to which you may be entitled from the Company. 
Nothing in this letter alters any of the terms of your employment with
the Company or creates any obligation on the part of the Company to retain you
as an employee.


 


	
   

  	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Angelica Berrie

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Angelica Berrie

  Chief Executive Officer