alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.71

                           AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AMENDED
                       AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



     This Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement is
executed as of March 11, 1999, by Eric I. Glassman (the "Executive") and D. I.Y.
Home Warehouse, Inc., an Ohio corporation (the "Company").

                                    RECITALS
                                    --------

     A. Executive and the Company are parties to a certain Employment Agreement,
dated as of July 1, 1998 (the "Agreement").

     B. The parties desire to amend the Agreement as set forth below.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants
contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties
agree as follows:

     1. Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read, in its entirety,
as follows:

        1. EMPLOYMENT. From and after the date of this Agreement (the "Effective
        Date") until December 31, 2001, unless sooner terminated as provided
        below or extended upon mutual agreement of the parties, the Company will
        employ Executive as the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
        the Company, to perform such services for and on behalf of the Company
        as the Company's Board of Directors may from time to time direct
        consistent with Executive's title and position, and Executive hereby
        accepts such employment, upon the terms and conditions set forth in this
        Agreement. Executive's principal place of business will be located
        .within a fifty (50) mile radius of downtown Cleveland, Ohio.

     2. As amended hereby, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect
and is hereby ratified and confirmed.

     3. This Amendment No. 1 may be executed in two or more counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute
one and the same instrument. 

<PAGE>   2

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment No. 1 as
of the date set forth above.



                                                  EXECUTIVE

                                                  /s/ Eric I. Glassman
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                  Eric I. Glassman



                                                  COMPANY

                                                  D.I.Y. Home Warehouse, Inc.,
                                                  an Ohio corporation



                                                  By: /s/ Fred A. Erb
                                                     -------------------------
                                                          Fred A. Erb
                                                  Its: Chairman
# **EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

# **Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 ofTitle 18 of the United States Code)**

** **

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer ofVornado Realty Trust (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’sknowledge, that:

 

The Annual Report on Form10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for year ended December 31, 2014**(the “Report”)of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. 

 

|           |   |   |
|----------------|--------|--------|
| March 27, 2015 |   |   | /s/ Stephen  W. Theriot |
|           |   | Name:  | Stephen W. Theriot |
|           |   | Title: | Chief Financial Officer |
§ 263.7 Good faith certification. ( a ) *General requirement.* Every filing or submission of record following the issuance of a notice must be signed by at least one counsel of record in the counsel's individual name and must state that counsel's mailing address, electronic mail address, and telephone number. A party who acts as the party's own counsel must sign that person's individual name and state that person's mailing address, electronic mail address, and telephone number on every filing or submission of record. Electronic signatures may be used to satisfy the signature requirements of this section.
( b ) *Effect of signature.* ( 1 ) The signature of counsel or a party will constitute a certification: the counsel or party has read the filing or submission of record; to the best of the counsel's or party's knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the filing or submission of record is well-grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; and the filing or submission of record is not made for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
( 2 ) If a filing or submission of record is not signed, the ALJ will strike the filing or submission of record, unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the pleader or movant.
( c ) *Effect of making oral motion or argument.* The act of making any oral motion or oral argument by any counsel or party constitutes a certification that to the best of the counsel's or party's knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the counsel's or party's statements are well-grounded in fact and are warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and are not made for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
# C_2010256EN.01000801.xml

| 23.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/8

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 1 December 2009

in Case E-7/09

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies)

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies)

2010/C 256/08

In Case E-7/09, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 10e of Annex XXII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time-limit prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 1 December 2009, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, the measures necessary to implement Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, the measures necessary to implement Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

| 2. | Orders the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---
From: Brian Coffey 

Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 5:04 PM 

To: Rob Greeson; thomas.patzner@schneider-electric.com; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com 

Cc: Matthew Nardotti; Chris Bolduc; Richard Parker 

Subject: LV Negotiating Group Technical Subcommittee 

Rob, Thomas, Vijay,

I was not able to attend last Wednesday’s LV Negotiation Committee meeting, unfortunately, but

learned of the establishment of a LV Technical Committee convened to look specifically at the

engineering analysis. First, are there others that I ought to be including? Second, what steps did you

have in mind for us to begin working? I will start by including a template I sent to the MV Committee

members this afternoon that could be used to facilitate an bidirectional exchange of engineering data.

I believe we have standing nondisclosure agreements with Federal and Schneider, Rob and Thomas.

Vijay, I would be happy to set one up if you wished to provide confidential engineering data to Navigant.

I’ll copy/paste my email to the MV group below.

Best,

Brian

MV Committee Members,

Several of the group have proposed that DOE facilitate a bidirectional exchange of engineering data.

Attached is one kind of template that could be used to compare the ways in which different parties can

achieve certain efficiency levels. DOE would populate the spreadsheet with detailed design information

for the least cost transformers able to achieve the draft efficiency levels using different steels.

Data provided to DOE could then be compared to the DOE designs and differences explained. Because

this data would likely be considered confidential, Navigant is willing  to enter into nondisclosure

agreements with any party submitting such data. This process would first be used to verify the

engineering analysis of the current representative units and could be expanded to analyze scaling

relationships.

We welcome comments and specific suggestions of how this process could be implemented.

Best,

Brian Coffey

______________________________________________________________ 

Brian Coffey | Senior Consultant | Energy | Navigant Consulting, Inc.

1801 K Street NW | Suite 500 | Washington, DC 20006 

+1.202.481.7521 Office
<PAGE>
                                                           EXHIBIT 10(g)
 GOLDEN AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
                            SURPLUS NOTE

Golden American Life Insurance Company agrees to pay Equitable Life
Insurance Company of Iowa corporation, the sum of $60 million
($60,000,000.00) plus interest at the rate of 7.25%  per annum from the
date hereof, December 30, 1998 until paid.  In any event, this note
will mature on December 29, 2028.

This Surplus Note and accrued interest thereon shall be subordinate to
payments due to policyholders, claimant and beneficiary claims, as well
as debts owed to all other classes of debtors, other than surplus note
holders, of Golden American Life Insurance Company in the event of (a)
the institution of bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency or
liquidation proceedings by or against Golden American Life Insurance
Company, or (b) the appointment of a Trustee, receiver or other
Conservator for a substantial part of Golden American Life Insurance
Company properties.

Any payments made shall first apply to accrued interest, and the
balance of such payment shall apply to reduce the principal of this
Note.

Any payment of principal and/or interest made shall be subject to the
prior approval of the Delaware Insurance Commissioner.  If the
Commissioner has not approved payment of principal to retire the note
prior to its maturity date, the maturity date will be automatically
extended until such time as the Commissioner authorizes payment of the
final balance of principal.

Golden American Life Insurance Company hereby waives presentment and
notice of dishonor.

In witness whereof, Golden American Life Insurance Company has caused
this Note to be executed and delivered.


                                GOLDEN AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

                                By: /s/ Stephen J. Preston
                                   --------------------------------
                                     Stephen J. Preston, Executive
                                         Vice President


Attest by:


/s/ David L. Jacobson
-------------------------
David L. Jacobson
Senior Vice President and
    Assistant Secretary
<PAGE>
# C_2015217EN.01002201.xml

| 2.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/22

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Eidsivating lagmannsrett dated 11 February 2015 in the case of Matja Kumba T. M’bye and Others v Stiftelsen Fossumkollektivet

(Case E-5/15)

(2015/C 217/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 11 February 2015 from Eidsivating lagmannsrett (Eidsivating Court of Appeal, Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 13 February 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Matja Kumba T. M’bye and Others v Stiftelsen Fossumkollektivet on the following questions:

| 1. | Is an average weekly working time of 84 hours (‘7-7 rotation’) in a cohabitant care arrangement in breach of Article 6, see also Article 22(1)(a), of the Working Time Directive (Directive 2003/88/EC)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is an average weekly working time of 84 hours (‘7-7 rotation’) in a cohabitant care arrangement in breach of Article 6, see also Article 22(1)(a), of the Working Time Directive (Directive 2003/88/EC)?

| 2. | Is a national provision, under which an employee’s consent to working more than 60 hours per week in a cohabitant care arrangement cannot be revoked, compatible with the rights that employees have under Article 6, see also Article 22, of the Working Time Directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a national provision, under which an employee’s consent to working more than 60 hours per week in a cohabitant care arrangement cannot be revoked, compatible with the rights that employees have under Article 6, see also Article 22, of the Working Time Directive?

| 3. | Is dismissal following a failure to consent to a working time arrangement of more than 48 hours over a seven-day period a sanction or ‘detriment’ within the meaning of Article 22(1)(a), see also (b), of the Working Time Directive? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is dismissal following a failure to consent to a working time arrangement of more than 48 hours over a seven-day period a sanction or ‘detriment’ within the meaning of Article 22(1)(a), see also (b), of the Working Time Directive?

---
#### UNITED STATES v. EDWARD P. BUCKENMEYER

[60 C. Cls. 836; 270 U. S. 649]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court-March 15, 1926.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Matter of T.S., a Juvenile

No. 06-22-00037-CV

Appeal from the County Court at Law of 

Harrison County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 5112). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice

Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

van Cleef participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the motion of the appellant to 

dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. 

Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 6, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
§ 252.86 Foreign bank multi-branch master agreements. ( a ) *Treatment of foreign bank multi-branch master agreements.* With respect to a U.S. branch or U.S. agency of a global systemically important foreign banking organization, a foreign bank multi-branch master agreement that is a covered QFC solely because the master agreement permits agreements or transactions that are QFCs to be entered into at one or more U.S. branches or U.S. agencies of the global systemically important foreign banking organization will be considered a covered QFC for purposes of this subpart only with respect to such agreements or transactions booked at such U.S. branches and U.S. agencies.
( b ) *Definition of foreign bank multi-branch master agreements.* A foreign bank multi-branch master agreement means a master agreement that permits a U.S. branch or U.S. agency and another place of business of a foreign bank that is outside the United States to enter transactions under the agreement.
# C_2014217EN.01001301.xml

| 10.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/13

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

(2014/C 217/09)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 19 March 2014 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 74981 |
| Decision number | : | 127/14/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | NCE Raufoss Innovation Cluster |
| Legal basis | : | Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement |
| Type of measure | : | Individual aid for cluster animation |
| Objective | : | Promotion of innovation |
| Form of aid | : | Grant |
| Budget | : | Overall budget: NOK 60 million |
| Duration | : | Until July 2016 |
| Economic sectors | : | Industrial machinery. Electrical and optical equipment |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Innovation Norway |
| PO Box 448 |
| Sentrum, Akersgata 13 |
| NO-0104 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

Date of adoption of the decision

:

19 March 2014

Case number

Case number

:

74981

Decision number

Decision number

:

127/14/COL

EFTA State

EFTA State

:

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

NCE Raufoss Innovation Cluster

Legal basis

Legal basis

:

Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement

Type of measure

Type of measure

:

Individual aid for cluster animation

Objective

Objective

:

Promotion of innovation

Form of aid

Form of aid

:

Grant

Budget

Budget

:

Overall budget: NOK 60 million

Duration

Duration

:

Until July 2016

Economic sectors

Economic sectors

:

Industrial machinery. Electrical and optical equipment

Name and address of the granting authority

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Innovation Norway

PO Box 448

Sentrum, Akersgata 13

NO-0104 Oslo

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
**City Capital Corporation.**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of City Capital Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ephren Taylor, Chief Executive 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:

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.

Dated: March 23, 2010

By: /*s/  Ephren W. Taylor II*    

Ephren W. Taylor II,

Chief Executive Officer 

(Principal executive, financial and accounting officer)
# C_2022069EN.01000701.xml

| 10.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

9 February 2022

(2022/C 69/07)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1435 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,04 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4437 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84255 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4075 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0555 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 142,20 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,0585 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,288 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 352,94 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5135 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9449 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 15,5510 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5933 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4514 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,9106 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7107 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5349 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 365,72 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,5281 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2759 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5285 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 390,99 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7853 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,603 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 85,5289 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,404 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,0198 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,4719 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 85,5765 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1435

JPY

Japanese yen

132,04

DKK

Danish krone

7,4437

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84255

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4075

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0555

ISK

Iceland króna

142,20

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,0585

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,288

HUF

Hungarian forint

352,94

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5135

RON

Romanian leu

4,9449

TRY

Turkish lira

15,5510

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5933

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4514

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,9106

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7107

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5349

KRW

South Korean won

1 365,72

ZAR

South African rand

17,5281

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2759

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5285

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 390,99

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7853

PHP

Philippine peso

58,603

RUB

Russian rouble

85,5289

THB

Thai baht

37,404

BRL

Brazilian real

6,0198

MXN

Mexican peso

23,4719

INR

Indian rupee

85,5765

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
# C_2006305EN.01003201.xml

| 14.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/32

---

Notification from the Norwegian authorities concerning regionally differentiated social security contributions

The EFTA Surveillance Authority has decided not to raise objections against the notified measure

(2006/C 305/11)

Date of adoption:

EFTA State: Norway

Case No: 59280

Title: Regionally differentiated social security contributions

Objective: Reduce or prevent depopulation in the least populated regions in Norway by stimulating employment in these regions

Legal basis: Article 1 of the yearly Resolution of the Parliament on rates for social security contributions etc, and Section 23-2 of Act No 19 of 28 February 1997 relating to the National Insurance Scheme (Folketrygdloven)

Folketrygdloven

Budget: Approximately NOK 8Formula billion (approximately EUR 1 billion) annually

Duration: From 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/stateaidregistry/

---