alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.75
                        EXTENSION OF CONSULTING AGREEMENT


     This Extension of Consulting Agreement is entered into at Sunnyvale, CA as
of June 7, 2001 between Catalyst Semiconductor, Inc. ("Company") and Allan
Advisors, Inc. ("Consultant").

          A.   Recitals. Company and Consultant entered in a Consulting
               Agreement on August 14, 1995, which Agreement was extended on
               June 3, 1998 and modified on January 1, 1999 (the "Agreement").
               Company and Consultant wish to extend and modify the Agreement as
               set forth herein.

          B.   Duties. Paragraph 2 of the Agreement is modified to provide that
               Consultant will provide advice in Santa Clara County as agreed
               between Consultant and the Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"). Such
               duties shall include:

               a.   Advisor and Counselor. Consultant will provide general
                    advice to the CEO on business and strategic legal issues.

               b.   Legal Services. Consultant will provide general legal advice
                    and will assist in coordinating services provided by outside
                    counsel as requested by the CEO.

               c.   Negotiations. Consultant will provide assistance to the CEO
                    in negotiating contractual and other business relationships.

          C.   Term. Paragraph 4 of the Agreement is modified to provide that
               the Agreement shall terminate on August 14, 2003; provided that
               Company may terminate the Agreement anytime prior to that date
               upon payment of a termination fee of $100,000. Any termination of
               the Agreement shall in no way effect the provisions of Paragraph
               5 of the Agreement, as modified herein.

          D.   Stock Options. Paragraph 5 of the Agreement is modified to delete
               the clause "...or if Company elects to terminate this Agreement
               prior to...[August 14, 2003]...."

Except as expressly modified herein, Company and Consultant ratify and affirm
all the terms and conditions on the Consulting Agreement entered into on August
14, 1995, as extended on June 3, 1998 and modified on January 1, 1999.


<TABLE>
<S>                                         <C>
Catalyst Semiconductor, Inc.                Allan Advisors, Inc.


/s/ Radu Vanco                              /s/ Lionel M. Allan
----------------------                      ----------------------
Radu Vanco,                                 Lionel M. Allan,
Chairman and CEO                            CEO
</TABLE>
Placeholder: confidential business information item 

Dow AgroSciences letter to EPA regarding 2010 Telone Production 

For more information please contact Jeremy Arling by phone at 202-343-9055 or by 

email at arling.jeremy@epa.gov
No. 98-20048 -1-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20048 Conference Calendar

MELVIN CHARLES JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; J. HARRISON; JOHN DOE, Unknown Physician; J.R. GABBARD, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-96-CV-3472

-------------------- February 16, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Melvin Charles Jackson, Texas prisoner # 580613, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), following the district court’s certification that his appeal from the dismissal of his civil-rights complaint was not taken in good faith. Jackson argues that the district court abused its discretion in finding that his complaints of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs were frivolous. Jackson has not shown that he can bring any claims of arguable merit on appeal. Accordingly,No. 98-20048 -2- Jackson’s IFP motion is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 24 -- POWERS OF ATTORNEY POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW ALL  PERSONS  BY THESE  PRESENTS,  that  the  undersigned,  Joseph
Ferrante,  appoints Robert E. Swanson and Martin V. Quinn,  and each of them, as
his true and lawful  attorneys-in-fact  with full power to act and do all things
necessary,  advisable or  appropriate,  in their  discretion,  to execute on his
behalf as an Independent Trustee of Ridgewood Electric Power Trust II, Ridgewood
Electric  Power  Trust III and  Ridgewood  Electric  Power  Trust V, the  Annual
Reports  on Form  10-K  for the year  ended  December  31,  1999 for each of the
above-named trusts, and all amendments or documents relating thereto.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney
this 18th day of March, 2000, at Aventura, Florida.

                                                /s/Joseph Ferrante
                                                     Joseph Ferrante

<PAGE>
POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW  ALL  PERSONS  BY THESE  PRESENTS,  that  the  undersigned,  Ralph
Hellmold,  appoints Robert E. Swanson and Martin V. Quinn,  and each of them, as
his true and lawful  attorneys-in-fact  with full power to act and do all things
necessary,  advisable or  appropriate,  in their  discretion,  to execute on his
behalf as an Independent Trustee of Ridgewood Electric Power Trust II, Ridgewood
Electric  Power  Trust III and  Ridgewood  Electric  Power  Trust IV, the Annual
Reports  on Form  10-K  for the year  ended  December  31,  1999 for each of the
above-named trusts, and all amendments or documents relating thereto.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney
this 18th day of March, 2000, at Aventura, Florida.

                                                 /s/Ralph Hellmold
                                                     Ralph Hellmold

<PAGE>
POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW ALL  PERSONS BY THESE  PRESENTS,  that the  undersigned,  Jonathan
Kaledin,  appoints  Robert E. Swanson and Martin V. Quinn,  and each of them, as
his true and lawful  attorneys-in-fact  with full power to act and do all things
necessary,  advisable or  appropriate,  in their  discretion,  to execute on his
behalf as an Independent Trustee of Ridgewood Electric Power Trust II, Ridgewood
Electric  Power  Trust III and  Ridgewood  Electric  Power  Trust V, the  Annual
Reports  on Form  10-K  for the year  ended  December  31,  1999 for each of the
above-named trusts, and all amendments or documents relating thereto.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney
this 18th day of March, 2000, at Aventura, Florida.

                                                 /s/Jonathan Kaledin
                                                     Jonathan Kaledin
1

Filed 9/1/21 P. v. Cowan CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Placer)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BILL GENE COWAN,

Defendant and Appellant. C093063

(Super. Ct. No. 62168268)

Appointed counsel for defendant Bill Gene Cowan asked this court to review the

record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more

favorable to defendant, we will affirm the jud gment.2 I

In January 2019, defendant wrote a check to High Sierra Divers for $781.56,

knowing he did not have sufficient funds to cover the check. He wrote a second check

for $800 at the same location, again knowing he did not have the funds to cover the

c heck; that check was not accepted.

The People subsequently charged defendant with two counts of writing checks

with insufficient funds with the intent to defraud his victim and alleged he was previously

convicted on three or more forgery charges . The Peop le further alleged defendant was

previously convicted of a strike offense and served a prior term in prison.

Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of writing checks with insufficient

funds with the intent to defraud, admitted the prior strike allegatio n, and admitted being

previously convicted of three forgery charges. Defendant and the People agreed

defendant would serve a stipulated, aggregate term of four year s in state prison. The

remaining charges and allegations were dismissed, along with cases pending against

defendant in Sacramento County Superior Court, with a Harvey waiver. ( People v.

Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754

. )

The trial court sentenced defendant to t he stipulated term of four years, awarded

him 49 days of custody credits, and ordered him to pay various fines and fees. The trial

court also ordered defendant to pay victim restitution directly to High Sierra Divers.

Defendant obtained a certificate of p robable cause.

II

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and

asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable

issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende

, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant wa s advised by

counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the

opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from

defendant.3

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we fin d no arguable error

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/S/ MAURO, J.

We concur:

/S/ ROBIE, Acting P. J.

/S/ DUARTE, J.
**Exhibit 12.2****I, Nicola V.M. Dell’Edera*****,*****certify that**:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Natuzzi S.p.A.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor 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 included inthis 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 officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and15d-15e) for the registrant 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 informationrelating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The company’s other certifying officers 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 (or persons performing the equivalentfunction); a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the company’s internal controls over financial reporting.      /s/ Nicola V.M. Dell’Edera   Nicola V.M. Dell’Edera  Chief Financial Officer a.i.  June 30, 2006
**Exhibit 32.2**

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,2005 (the “Form 10-K”) of Cardinal Financial Corporation, I, RobertA. Cern, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(a)   the Form 10-Kfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(b)   the information contained in the Form 10-Kfairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial conditionand results of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries as of, and for,the periods presented in the Form 10-K.

| Date: March 6, 2006 |   | /s/ Robert A. Cern                                   |
|--------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |   | Robert A. Cern                                       |
|                     |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
# Official Journal L 278/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 278 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 642 August 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 278

English edition

Legislation

Volume 642 August 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Decision (EU) 2021/1274 of the European Central Bank of 27 July 2021 on the sub-delegation of the powers to take certain decisions relating to a manufacturer’s accreditation and of certain powers regarding the accreditation procedures for accredited manufacturers and repealing Decision (EU) 2016/1975 (ECB/2021/32) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Decision (EU) 2021/1274 of the European Central Bank of 27 July 2021 on the sub-delegation of the powers to take certain decisions relating to a manufacturer’s accreditation and of certain powers regarding the accreditation procedures for accredited manufacturers and repealing Decision (EU) 2016/1975 (ECB/2021/32)

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
# C_2015320EN.01001501.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 29 June 2015 — Google Ireland Limited, Google Italy Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

(Case C-322/15)

(2015/C 320/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Google Ireland Limited, Google Italy Srl

Applicants:

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Article 56 TFEU preclude application of contested Resolution No 397/13/CONS of the Autorità di garanzia delle Telecomunicazioni, and of the related provisions of national law, as interpreted along the lines proposed by that authority, which require the submission of complex ‘economic system information’ (which must be drawn up in accordance with Italian accounting standards) on the economic activities carried out in relation to Italian consumers, motivated by objectives of protecting competition but necessarily connected to the various and more limited institutional functions of that authority of safeguarding pluralism within the sector concerned, to operators which none the less do not come within the scope of the national legislation governing that sector (the Testo Unico dei Servizi di Media Audiovisivi e Radiofonici), and in particular, in the case under review here, to a national operator carrying out only services for its fellow subsidiary governed by Irish law and also, as regards the latter, to an operator not having its headquarters and not carrying on any business using employees within national territory; alternatively, does this constitute a measure restricting freedom to provide services within the European Union in breach of Article 56 TFEU?

---
§ 796.5 What are the penalties for violating these special post-employment restrictions? ( a ) *Penalties under section 1786(w)(5) of the Act.* An NCUA senior examiner who violates the post-employment restrictions set forth in § 796.3 can be: ( 1 ) Removed from participating in the affairs of the relevant credit union and prohibited from participating in the affairs of any federally insured credit union for a period of up to five years; and, alternatively, or in addition,
( 2 ) Assessed a civil monetary penalty up to the amount specified in § 747.1001 of this chapter.
( b ) *Other penalties.* The penalties in paragraph (a) of this section are not exclusive, and a senior examiner who violates the restrictions in § 796.3 also may be subject to other administrative, civil, and criminal remedies and penalties as provided in law.
[70 FR 72703, Dec. 7, 2005, as amended at 80 FR 57289, Sept. 23, 2015]
Exhibit 99.7


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 annual report of Golden Star Resources Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2014, André van Niekerk, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Golden Star Resources Ltd., hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge:


1. The annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


2. The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ André   van Niekerk


André van Niekerk


Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer











Toronto, Canada


March 31, 2015
#### SUTTON *v.*McCOY.

Appeal bond — approbation of the clerk — filing.

The security in an appeal bond is required to be approved by the clerk, but the bond need not be executed *before*him.

If the clerk express his approbation of a security, and he execute an appeal bond, which is given to the clerk, within the thirty days, it perfects the appeal, though it was sealed up and so laid away.

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas.

*S. W. Culbertson*moved to dismiss the appeal,

because the Common Pleas having closed its term on the 15th March, the appeal bond, although executed on the 12th April, was not handed to the cleric until the 14th of April; was then enclosed in an envelope, and the clerk, not knowing what it was, did not open it till May; *so the bond was not approved in time,*or executed in presence of the clerk.

By the Court.

It appears, that before the bond was executed, the clerk told the appellant he would receive, the securities in it. The bond was executed in time, and handed to the clerk. He laid it away without opening it till after the 30 days had expired. We think this not very material. The law requires-the clerk to approve the securities, not that the bond shall be executed before him; he did approve the security in this cause. Motion overruled.
##### 



Exhibit 10.15
 EXECUTION VERSION
1.5X FORM
  AMENDED AND RESTATED CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT
       § 1. Definitions.
 Affiliate




---



##### 



Board
 Cash Compensation
  provided,
however
  Cause
  -2-




---



##### 



provided, however
  Change in Control
     -3-




---



##### 



provided, however
 Code
 Compensation Committee
 Confidential or Proprietary Information
 Delayed Payment Date
 -4-




---



##### 



Disability
 Effective Date
 Exchange Act
 Good Reason
     -5-




---



##### 



provided, however
      -6-




---



##### 



Gross Up Payment
 Group Health Plan
 Interest The Wall Street
Journal
 Multifamily Property
 Post
 Post Apartment Homes
 Post GP Holdings
 -7-




---



##### 



Post Group
 Post Services
 Protection Period
 Restricted Period
 Separation from Service
 Specified Employee
 Trade Secret
   § 2. Term.
 -8-




---



##### 



Initial Term
 Automatic Renewals
 Special Rules
 § 3. Compensation and Benefits.
 General Rule
 provided, however,
  -9-




---



##### 



-10-




---



##### 



No Increase In Other Benefits
  -11-




---



##### 



Termination In Anticipation Of A Change In Control
     Termination as a result of Death or Disability
  § 4. No Solicitation Of Customers.
  § 5. Antipirating Of Employees.
  -12-




---



##### 



§ 6. Trade Secrets And Confidential Or Proprietary Information.
   § 7. Reasonable and Necessary Restrictions.
     -13-




---



##### 



§ 8. Specific Performance.
  § 9. Tax Protection.
 General Rule provided, however,
 -14-




---



##### 



409A Rule
 § 10. Executives Legal Fees and Expenses.
  § 11. Miscellaneous.
 Binding Effect provided, however, provided, however
 -15-




---



##### 



Construction of Agreement
 Governing Law
 Survival of Agreements
 Headings and References
 Notices
 (a)
    
    If to Executive, to Executive at his or her most recent home address as shown
in the Post Groups personnel files.
 -16-




---



##### 



(b)
    
    If to the Post Group:
 
  
 Counterparts
 Entire Agreement
 Severability
 No Waiver
 Not an Employment Contract
 -17-




---



##### 



POST PROPERTIES, INC.By:Name:Title:POST APARTMENT HOMES, L.P.By:Name:Title:POST SERVICES, INC.By:Name:Title:EXECUTIVE
 -18-