alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.8


 


[DATE]


 


GRANT
INTIMATION


 


Emp #:    

Name:     [Participant]


 


Dear [Participant],


 


We are pleased to grant you an option to acquire [______] Equity
Shares of the Company (Face value – [____] per share) under the Employees’ Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”)
at a price of [_______]per share under [________].


 


You are not required to pay for the Options granted to you.


 


Please note that the price has been arrived at based on the Securities
and Exchange Board of India (Employee Stock Option Scheme and Employee Stock Purchase Scheme) guidelines 1999 and [_____________].


 


This grant of the options will be subject to the following terms
and conditions and to the rules contained in the Plan.


 


		·	[Insert applicable vesting dates].



 


		·	[Insert applicable vesting dates].



 


		·	[Insert applicable vesting dates].



 


		·	[Insert applicable vesting dates].



 


The exercise can be done during the period of [seven/10] years
from the date of [vesting/grant]. Allotments will be made in the following month of each quarter.


 


While exercising the options, you must pay to the Company the consideration
in full for acquiring the options which are vested in your favor, along with the payment of necessary applicable taxes, if any.
Please check with the accounts/Finance Department of the country in which you are located at the time of exercise as regards tax
liability on exercise of options and pay or make arrangements to with respect to same.


 


The share certificates will be issued to you after you exercise
the option and complete all other required measures. In case you have a Demat account, the shares will be credited to your Demat
account provided you inform the correct account numbers etc. to the company at the time of exercise. Normally, it will take at
least one month to get shares listed from the date of allotment.


 


The Board of Directors are entitled to change the terms and conditions
mentioned herein above at any time as provided under the Plan. The Plan is also subject to the rules and regulations framed by
SEBI and Companies Act, 1956, as applicable.


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


Please find enclosed the Plan and other disclosure documents as
prescribed by [SEBI and/or by other applicable law].


 


In case you do not want to accept the Grant of these Options, please
inform the Corporate HR, latest by [DATE].


 


With Regards


 


For [Company]


 


 


Kindly sign & return a copy of this letter in acknowledgment.


 


	Name	:
	 	 
	Signature	:
	 	 
	Date	:
###### Editorial Note on Part 20

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

#### § 20.50 Purpose and scope.

The regulations in this subpart establish the policies and procedures to implement section 11 of the Debt Collection Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-365), 31 U.S.C. 3717. Among other things, this statute authorizes the head of each agency to assess interest, penalties and administrative costs against debtors with respect to delinquent debts arising under the agency's program. This subpart establishes the standards and procedures that will be followed by the Department of Labor in assessing such charges.
#### § 2705.10 Fees.

If an individual requests copies of his or her record, he or she will be charged a reasonable fee, excluding the cost of any search for review of the record, in advance of receipt of the pages.
§ 417.14 Form and time for filing of appeal with the Administrative Review Board. ( a ) An interested person may appeal from the Administrative Law Judge's initial decision by filing written exceptions with the Administrative Review Board within 15 days of the issuance of the Administrative Law Judge's initial decision (or such additional time as the Administrative Review Board may allow), together with supporting reasons for such exceptions, in accordance with 29 CFR part 26. Blanket appeals shall not be received. Impertinent or scandalous matter may be stricken by the Administrative Review Board, or an appeal containing such matter or lacking in specification of exceptions may be dismissed.
( b ) In the absence of either an appeal to the Administrative Review Board or review of the Administrative Law Judge's initial decision by the Administrative Review Board on his own motion, such initial decision shall become the decision of the Administrative Review Board.
[29 FR 8264, July 1, 1964, as amended at 78 FR 8025, Feb. 5, 2013; 86 FR 1785, Jan. 11, 2021]
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42394

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DAVID WESLEY GLORIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 373

Filed: February 26, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed. 

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

David Wesley Gloria pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-

2732(c). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court 

sentenced Gloria to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of two 

years. Gloria filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Gloria appeals.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 
2

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the 

record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order 

denying Gloria’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### General Services Administration

          - 41 CFR Part 102-36 
          - [FPMR Amendment H-205] 
          - RIN 3090-AF39 

# AGENCY:

Office of Governmentwide Policy, GSA. 

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects an error contained in a final rule appearing in Part III of the                         **Federal Register**                         of Tuesday, May 16, 2000 (64 FR 31218). The rule revised the Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR) by moving coverage on the disposition of excess personal property into the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) and adding a cross-reference to the FPMR to direct readers to the coverage in the FMR.                     

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

May 30, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martha Caswell, Director, Personal Property Management Policy Division (MTP), 202-501-3828. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In rule document 00-11921 beginning on page 31218 in the issue of Tuesday, May 16, 2000, make the following correction: 

§ 102-36.170 

1. On page 31225, in the first column, in the second line, “in” should read “is”. 

Dated: May 19, 2000.

Sharon A. Kiser, 

Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Governmentwide Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-13147 Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820-24-P
Exhibit 32.2

    Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of First Coastal Bancshares (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Deborah A. Marsten, CFO 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:

      3)    The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                        /s/ Deborah A. Marsten
                                        ----------------------
                                        Deborah A. Marsten
                                        Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2003

                                       20
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7578

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL DAVID TURNER, a/k/a Michael David Bunch,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (2:07-cr-00040-AWA-TEM-1; 2:12-cv-00468-AWA)

Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael David Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin L. Hatch, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael David Turner seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)

motion because Turner failed to obtain prefiling authorization 

from this court. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Turner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David B. Swank certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Diomed Holdings,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and 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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.





Date:  August 11, 2006                        /s/ DAVID B. SWANK
                                              -----------------------------
#### § 401.3 Industry affecting commerce.

*Industry affecting commerce* means any activity, business, or industry in commerce or in which a labor dispute would hinder or obstruct commerce or the free flow of commerce and includes any activity or industry “affecting commerce” within the meaning of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, or the Railway Labor Act, as amended.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit (23)

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Lindal Cedar Homes, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
33-64186) on Form S-8 of Lindal Cedar Homes, Inc. of our report dated February
14, 1997 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Lindal Cedar Homes, Inc.
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated
statements of earnings, stockholders' equity, and cash flows and related
schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996,
which report appears in the December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of
Lindal Cedar Homes, Inc.

/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 26, 1997



                                      -42-
#### § 458.53 Filing of complaints.

A complaint alleging violations of this part may be filed with any district office, or any other office of the Office of Labor-Management Standards.

[45 FR 15158, Mar. 7, 1980. Redesignated and amended at 50 FR 31311, 31313, Aug. 1, 1985; 63 FR 33780, June 19, 1998]
Order entered August 7, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00586-CR

TIMOTHY MANIMOI, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F08-59321-Y

ORDER

In this case, appellant raises an issue related to the costs assessed against him. The 

record, however, does not contain a cost bill or other document with an itemized list of costs 

assessed in this case. Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas Count District Clerk to file, within 

TEN DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed 

itemization of the costs assessed in this case, including but not limited to, specific court costs, 

fees, and court appointed attorney fees. In accordance with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 

article 103.001, the cost bill shall be signed by the officer who charged the costs or the officer 

who is entitled to receive payment for the cost. We further ORDER that the supplemental 
clerk’s record include a document explaining any and all abbreviations used to designate a 

particular fee, cost, or court appointed attorney fees.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission to Gary 

Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal 

Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ MICHAEL J. O'NEILL 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
Return
      to Main Document




**EXHIBIT
        32.2**
   
  **EXPRESS
        SYSTEMS, CORPORATIN.**
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
        THE
        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
  In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Express Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on
        Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard Brown,
        Principal Accounting Officer, Principal Financial Officer, and Director of
        the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
        to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
        knowledge:
  
 1.
              The
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                  and
  2.
              The
                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                  Company.
   /s/Richard
        Brown  ______________________
 Richard
        Brown
 Principal
        Accounting Officer, Principal Financial Officer, and Director
#### § 4211.2 Definitions.

The following terms are defined in § 4001.2 of this chapter: Code, employer, IRS, multiemployer plan, nonforfeitable benefit, PBGC, plan, and plan year.

In addition, for purposes of this part:

*Initial plan year* means a merged plan's first complete plan year that begins after the effective date of the merged plan.

*Initial plan year unfunded vested benefits* means the unfunded vested benefits as of the close of the initial plan year, less the value as of the end of the initial plan year of all outstanding claims for withdrawal liability that can reasonably be expected to be collected from employers that had withdrawn as of the end of the initial plan year.

*Merged plan* means a plan that is the result of the merger of two or more multiemployer plans.

*Merger* means the combining of two or more multiemployer plans into one multiemployer plan.

*Prior plan* means the plan in which an employer participated immediately before that plan became a part of the merged plan.

*Unfunded vested benefits* means, as described in section 4213(c) of ERISA, the amount by which the value of nonforfeitable benefits under the plan exceeds the value of the assets of the plan.

*Withdrawing employer* means the employer for which withdrawal liability is being calculated under section 4201 of ERISA.

*Withdrawn employer* means an employer that, in a plan year before the withdrawing employer withdraws, has discontinued contributions to the plan or covered operations under the plan and whose obligation to contribute has not been assumed by a successor employer within the meaning of section 4204 of ERISA. A temporary suspension of contributions, including a suspension described in section 4218(2) of ERISA, is not considered a discontinuance of contributions.

[61 FR 34097, July 1, 1996, as amended at 73 FR 79635, Dec. 30, 2008; 86 FR 1271, Jan. 8, 2021]
#### § 35.15 Remedial action.

Even in the absence of a finding of discrimination, a recipient, in administering a program, may take steps to overcome the effects of conditions that resulted in a limited participation on the basis of age. Nothing in this section will permit any otherwise prohibited use of age distinctions that have the effect of excluding individuals from, denying them benefits of, subjecting them to discrimination under, or limiting them in their opportunity to participate in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from DOL.
Editorial Note on Part 4
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

§ 4.190 Contract cancellation. ( a ) As provided in section 3 of the Act, where a violation is found of any contract stipulation, the contract is subject upon written notice to cancellation by the contracting agency, whereupon the United States may enter into other contracts or arrangements for the completion of the original contract, charging any additional cost to the original contractor.
( b ) Every contractor shall certify pursuant to § 4.6(n) of subpart A that it is not disqualified for the award of a contract by virtue of its name appearing on the debarred bidders list or because any such currently listed person or firm has a substantial interest in said contractor, as described in § 4.188. Upon discovery of such false certification or determination of substantial interest in a firm performing on a Government contract, as the case may be, the contract is similarly subject upon written notice to immediate cancellation by the contracting agency and any additional cost for the completion of the contract charged to the original contractor as specified in paragraph (a). Such contract is without warrant of law and has no force and effect and is void ab initio, 33 Comp Gen. 63; Decision of the Comptroller General, B-115051, August 6, 1953. Furthermore, any profit derived from said illegal contract is forfeited (*Paisner* v. *U.S.,* 138 Ct. Cl. 420, 150 F. Supp. 835 (1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 941).
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

 3 September 2004

(2004/C 222/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----