alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.5

 



 

	
Date:
    	
March 13,   2014
    
	
Subject:
    	
Promotion   and Assignment change
    


 

Steve,

 

I am enthusiastic about offering you a new assignment, as we discussed.  And as discussed, there will be two distinct phases to this assignment.  On a longer term basis, your new position will be Senior Vice President, International Operations, reporting to me.  In that position, you will have responsibility for our contract operations and aftermarket services businesses in the Eastern Hemisphere and Latin America.  This assignment will begin upon completion of the interim assignment described below.

 

On an interim basis, starting May 1, you will assume the position of Vice President, Sales and Business Development, Eastern Hemisphere, reporting to me.  In this interim position, you will have responsibility for the sales and business development teams and activities related to our sold product businesses in the Eastern Hemisphere, supporting large scale contract operations and aftermarket services business growth, when requested by the operations organization, and assisting with the efforts to recruit a successor for this position.

 

Effective, May 1, your 2014 compensation package will be:

 

	
·
    	
Base   Salary:
    	
$350,000   annually
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
·
    	
Short-Term   Incentive Target (STI):
    	
70%,   or $245,000 annually
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
·
    	
Long-Term   Incentive Target (LTI):
    	
$500,000
    


 

In addition, you will receive a one-time LTI grant of $400,000 in Exterran Restricted Stock, subject to the approval of the Compensation Committee.

 

Your benefits will not change.  You will receive revised Change of Control and Severance Benefit Agreements.

 

Your work location will be in Houston.  It is anticipated that you will spend much of the first 3-6 months working out of the Dubai offices or traveling.  While you are in Dubai, Exterran will provide you and your spouse with a furnished apartment, a car and a $10,000 one-time settling in allowance.  In addition to your temporary relocation and return trips, you will each have the opportunity to take one business class trip to Houston at company expense.

 

Steve, I’m looking forward to an exciting 2014 and am counting on you and your team to deliver outstanding results.  Again, congratulations on your promotion! I am also very much looking forward to you joining the executive leadership team.

 

Sincerely,

 

	
By:
    	
/s/   D. BRADLEY CHILDERS
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
D. Bradley   Childers
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
President and   Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 12.1
<TABLE>

             Electronic Retailing Systems International, Inc.
             Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                   (Amounts in thousands of dollars)

<CAPTION>

                                                 Year Ended December 31,
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           1998          1997         1996
                                           -----------------------------------
<S>                                        <C>           <C>          <C>
Pre-tax from continuing operations         $(34,313)     $(26,873)    $(9,412)

Fixed Charges:
-------------
Interest expense & amortization              16,886        14,024         382

Rentals:
 Buildings  33%                                 315           141          93
 Office and other leased equipment  33%           8            13          11
                                           ---------     --------     -------

Total fixed charges                          17,209        14,178         486
                                            --------     --------     -------
Earnings before income taxes, minority
 interest and fixed charges                 (17,104)      (12,695)     (8,926)
                                           --------      --------     -------

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges            (0.99)        (0.90)     (18.37)
                                           ========     =========      ======

Deficiency of earnings to fixed charges    $ 34,313      $ 26,873     $ 9,412
                                           ========      ========     =======

</TABLE>
#### § 1015.8 Waiver not permitted.

It is a violation of this rule for any person to obtain, or attempt to obtain, a waiver from any consumer of any protection provided by or any right of the consumer under this rule.
42118.

#### VOGT v. RICE.

Pannell, Judge.

1. Pretermitting the question of whether the objection to the charges made was sufficiently definite under the provisions of Sec. 6 of the Act of 1966 (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 493,. 498; *Code Ann.*§ 70-207), the grounds of objection are based entirely on the alleged lack of evidence in the particulars therein set forth. Under the evidence the jury was authorized to find that the plaintiff, by reason of intoxication, went to sleep on the back seat of the defendant’s automobile with knowledge that the defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages and that the defendant would subsequently *252drive the automobile, and the jury was further authorized to find that the subsequent wreck of the automobile was caused by excessive speed brought on by the drinking of the defendant driver. Under these circumstances the jury was authorized to find that the plaintiff assumed the risk and was guilty of such lack of ordinary care for his own protection and safety as to preclude a recovery on his part even though he was asleep during the entire ride preceding the wreck in which he was injured. See in this connection, *Sparks v. Porcher,*109 Ga. App. 334 (136 SE2d 153), and cases cited and discussed therein. There was no error in the charges complained of in enumerations of error numbers 3, 4 and 5 because of the grounds stated to the trial judge.

Argued July 5, 1966

Decided September 6, 1966.

2. Paragraph (a) of Section 17 of the Appellate Practice Act of 1965 (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 31), as amended by Section 6 of the Act of 1966 (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 493, 498; *Code Ann.*§ 70-207), reads: “Except as otherwise provided in this section; in all cases, no party may complain of *the giving*or *the failure to give*an instruction to the jury unless he objects thereto before the jury returns its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection. Opportunity shall be given to make the objection out of the hearing of the jury, and objections need not be made with the particularity of assignments of error (abolished by this Act) and need only be as reasonably definite as the circumstances will permit.” The record in the present case does not disclose that appellant made any objections pursuant to the requirements of the above section as to the charges complained of in enumerations of error numbers 1, 2 and 6, or the failure to charge as requested complained of in enumerations of error numbers 7 and 8. The requirements of Par. (c) of Sec. 17 not having been met, these alleged errors, therefore, present no question for review. See *Strong v. Palmour,*113 Ga. App. 750 (149 SE2d 745); *King v. Adams,*113 Ga. App. 708 (149 SE2d 548).

3. The evidence was amply sufficient to authorize the verdict for the defendant, and there being no reversible error shown, the judgment in accordance with the verdict must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*

*253
      *L. B. Kent,*for appellant.

*Kelly, Champion & Henson, J. Norman Pease,*for appellee.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 50219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23603]

[[Page 50219]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the 
Board of Scientific Counselors for Clinical Sciences and Epidemiology 
National Cancer Institute.
    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in 
accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of 
individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National 
Cancer Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications 
and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the 
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 
personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors for Clinical 
Sciences and Epidemiology National Cancer Institute.
    Date: November 9, 2009.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and 
performance, and competence of individual investigators.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 
9000 Rockville Pike, Building 31, Conference Room 10, Bethesda, MD 
20892.
    Contact Person: Brian E. Wojcik, PhD, Senior Review 
Administrator, Institute Review Office, Office of the Director, 
National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 2201, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-7628, [email protected].
    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent 
procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, 
including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected 
before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one 
form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, 
driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their 
visit.
    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/bsc.htm, where an agenda 
and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when 
available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 25, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-23603 Filed 9-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
§ 18.513 Exceptions to the rules against age discrimination; normal operation or statutory objective of any program or activity. A recipient is permitted to take an action, otherwise prohibited by § 18.511, if the action reasonably takes into account age as a factor necessary to the normal operation or the achievement of any statutory objective of a program or activity. An action reasonably takes into account age as a factor necessary to the normal operation or the achievement of any statutory objective of a program or activity, if: ( a ) Age is used as a measure or approximation of one or more other characteristics; and
( b ) The other characteristic(s) must be measured or approximated in order for the normal operation of the program or activity to continue, or to achieve any statutory objective of the program or activity; and
( c ) The other characteristic(s) can be reasonably measured or approximated by the use of age; and
( d ) The other characteristic(s) are impractical to measure directly on an individual basis.
(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6101-6107)
§ 13.500 Removal of fiduciaries. ( a ) The Hub Manager may remove a fiduciary if the Hub Manager determines that fiduciary services are no longer required for a beneficiary or removal is in the beneficiary's interest. Reasons for removal include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) *Beneficiary reasons.* ( i ) A VA rating authority determines that the beneficiary can manage his or her own VA benefits without VA supervision or appointment of a fiduciary;
( ii ) The beneficiary requests appointment of a successor fiduciary under § 13.100;
( iii ) The beneficiary requests supervised direct payment of benefits under § 13.110; or
( iv ) The beneficiary dies.
( 2 ) *Fiduciary reasons.* ( i ) The fiduciary's further service is barred under § 13.130;
( ii ) The fiduciary fails to maintain his or her qualifications or does not adequately perform the responsibilities of a fiduciary prescribed in § 13.140;
( iii ) The fiduciary fails to timely submit a complete accounting as prescribed in § 13.280;
( iv ) VA or a court with jurisdiction determines that the fiduciary misused or misappropriated VA benefits;
( v ) The fiduciary fails to respond to a VA request for information within 30 days after such request is made, unless the Hub Manager grants an extension based upon good cause shown by the fiduciary;
( vi ) The fiduciary is unable or unwilling to provide the surety bond prescribed by § 13.230 or, if applicable, enter into a restricted withdrawal agreement;
( vii ) The fiduciary no longer meets the requirements for appointment under § 13.100; or
( viii ) The fiduciary is unable or unwilling to manage the beneficiary's benefit payments, accounts, or investments.
( b ) *Procedures.* ( 1 ) If the Hub Manager determines that it is necessary to remove a fiduciary and appoint a successor fiduciary, the Hub Manager will: ( i ) Provide the fiduciary and the beneficiary written notice of the removal; and
( ii ) Instruct the fiduciary regarding the fiduciary's responsibilities prior to transfer of funds to a successor fiduciary or provide other instructions to the fiduciary.
( 2 ) The fiduciary must: ( i ) Continue as fiduciary for the beneficiary until the Hub Manager provides the fiduciary with the name and address of the successor fiduciary and instructions regarding the transfer of funds to the successor fiduciary; and
( ii ) Not later than 30 days after transferring funds to the successor fiduciary or as otherwise instructed by the Hub Manager, provide the fiduciary hub a final accounting.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 5502, 5507, 6106)
Order entered April 24, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01672-CR

No. 05-13-01720-CR

FRANCISCO JAVIER ESCOBAR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F13-59278-M, F11-71776-M

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeals.

On March 4, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

reporter’s record had not been filed. On April 22, 2014, we received the reporter’s record. 

Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeals, we VACATE the March 4, 2014 order 

requiring findings.

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2022 Fiscal Transparency Report…Somalia

# 					2022 Fiscal Transparency Report: Somalia			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Somalia 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Somalia

The government made significant progress by publishing its executive budget proposal within a reasonable period.  During the review period, the government published its enacted budget and end-of-year report online within a reasonable period.  The government published external debt obligations.  Budget documents were substantially complete.  Some ministries may have maintained off-budget accounts not subject to audit or oversight.  While actual revenues and expenditures may have deviated from projections, the government issued a revised supplemental budget, but periodic budget execution reports were delayed.  The supreme audit institution produced a publicly available review of the government’s accounts.  The supreme audit institution did not meet international standards of independence but did publish comprehensive and timely audit reports that contained substantive findings.

Somalia’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- Eliminating off-budget accounts or subjecting them to adequate oversight and audit; and
- Ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence;

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Somalia 

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentSomalia

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
#### § 8.28 Application for reinstatement of total disability income provision.

A total disability income provision which is lapsed may be reinstated if the insured meets the same requirements as those for reinstatement of the policy to which the total disability income provision is attached; except that in no event shall the requirement of a health statement or other medical evidence be waived in connection with the reinstatement of the total disability income provision.

[61 FR 29293, June 10, 1996. Redesignated at 65 FR 7437, Feb. 15, 2000, and further redesignated at 67 FR 54739, Aug. 26, 2002]
Exhibit 10.2


 


 


 


 





21 November 2013


Oriana Technologies Inc.


550 Chemin du Golf Suite 202,


lle des Soeurs Quebec, H2E 1A8


Dear Mr. Richard Groome


SELECT-TV AND ORIANA TECHNOLOGIES LICENSEE AGREEMENT


With reference to the above, the licensee
agreement signed between Select-TV and Oriana Technologies on October 1, 2012 stipulates that upon failure to achieve the volume
targets set through August 2013 followed by a six-month remedy period through February 2014, Select-TV has the right to terminate
the licensee’s exclusivity for the Americas region.


Based upon the excellent progress that Oriana has made toward securing
substantial business contracts, Select-TV hereby agrees to push back the milestone dates for achieving the volumes laid out in
the Terms and Targets section of the licensee agreement by one full year, such that the volume previously agreed for August 2013
shall now apply to August 2014 and so on, as indicated below. The six month remedy period shall also continue to apply for each
year’s volume targets as before. However, in the event that Oriana fails to secure additional investment funding, or at
a minimum a binding commitment for additional investment funding, by the end of February, 2014, Select-TV shall have the right
to terminate the agreement.


We continue to look forward to success in our partnership.


Yours truly, 


 


 


/s/ CSGoh                                     

CSGoh

Chief Executive Officer


	Year	Original Target 

STB units	Original Milestone

Date	New Target STB

Units	New Milestone Date
	One 	10,000 	August 2013 	10,000 	August 2014 
	Two 	12,000 	August 2014 	15,000 	August 2015 
	Three 	12,000 	August 2015 	15,000 	August 2016 
	Four 	12,000 	August 2016 	15,000 	August 2017 
	Five 	12,000 	August 2017 	15,000 	August 2018
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Potential for loss of emergencycooling function due to a combination of operational and post-LOCA debris incontainment [electronic resource]**
 
SuDoc Number:Y 3.N 88:56-2/93-34

Item Number:1051-H-08 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000873252
 
Notice | SupplementNo. 1
 
April 2, 2020
HUSBAND AND WIFE.

[Franklin Circuit Court,

January Term, 1892.]

Shearer, Stewart and Shauck, JJ.

#### MARIA BEHLEN v. HENRY FRAAS.

Tender to a Wife Who Takes Her Husband’s Note, Euects to Tevy Upon Him.

When the lender of money to a wife, contemporaneously with the loan, and with full-knowledge of all the facts affecting the transaction, takes the husband’s promissory note for its repayment, he thereby conclusively elects to rely upon the maker. ■

Error to Court of Common Pleas of Franklin county.

Fraas filed his petition in the court oelow against the plaintiff in error to recover money loaned. Her answer was a general denial. Upon the trial of the case the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that before August 5, 1887, C. Behlen, the defendant’s husband, applied to him for a loan of money, and that he denied the application. The wife then joined her husband in urging Fraas to make the loan, saying ‘‘our taxes have not been paid.” Being thus importuned, he borrowed tfie money, took it to the residence of the Behlens, delivered it to the husband in the presence of the wife, and took therefor a promissory note executed by C. Behlen alone, and payable in ninety days with interest. His-testimony also tends to show that a portion of the money was used in paying taxes on the: ■property of Mrs. Behlen. He admits the acceptance of the. note by him, and that he knew at the time of the making of the note all the facts upon which he now relies.

Mrs. Behlen denies that she solicited a loan from Fraas either to herself or her husband, and denies that any of the money was used for her benefit. The jury found for the plaintiff, and the court of common pleas overruled a motion for a new trial. That ruling is. the subject of the error assigned.

John D. Sullivan, for plaintiff in error.

Alex. Krumm, *contra.*

SHAUCK, J.

The burden of proof was upon the plaintiff below. The testimony of the parties was in direct conflict. It seems clear that if the jury had given its proper probative effect in her support to the fact that the sole note of the husband was taken in consideration of the loan, the verdict would have been for the plaintiff in error.

But upon principle and authority the acceptance of a note under such circumstances, is in law, conclusive of the question which the trial court left to the jury. There is neither allegation nor proof that the name of Mrs. Behlen was left off the note by mistake or omission, nor that any fact that is now disclosed was not then known by the lender of the money. If, therefore, he might elect whether the husband, or the wife, or both should be debtor to him on account of the loan, he made an election by which he is conclusively bound. Bishop on Contracts, 1078 and 1085; Paterson v. Gaudesequi, 15 East 62; Coxe v. Devine, 5 Harring 375; Silver v. Jordan, 136 Mass. 319.

'The judgment of the court of common pleas will be reversed, final judgment ■will be rendered for the plaintiff in error and the cause remanded for execution.