alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
****Exhibit**10.13AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT     WHEREAS, Allegheny Energy Service Corporation (the “Company”) and David E. Flitman (the“Employee”) previously entered into a Change in Control Agreement, originally effective as of July7, 2006 (the “Agreement”).     WHEREAS, effective as of November 1, 2007, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to complywith certain changes in applicable law.     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants contained herein, and for other good andvaluable consideration, the parties hereto agree as follows:  1. Section 7(e) shall be amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:     ”(e) The Company shall be entitled to withhold from payments due hereunder anyrequired federal, state or local withholding or other taxes. To the extent that any amountspayable to the Employee under the Agreement hereof are subject to Section 409A(a)(2)(B) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), any requirements under theAgreement that such amounts be paid promptly shall not apply and instead such amounts shallbe paid in a lump sum as of the date six months after the Termination Date. The Agreementshall be interpreted to avoid any penalty sanctions under Section 409A of the Code. If anypayment or benefit cannot be provided or made at the time specified herein without incurringsanctions under Section 409A of the Code, then such benefit or payment shall be provided infull at the earliest time thereafter when such sanctions will not be imposed. For purposesof Section 409A of the Code, each payment made under the Agreement shall be treated as aseparate payment and any payment to be made upon a termination of employment under theAgreement may only be made if such termination of employment constitutes a “separation fromservice” as determined under Section 409A of the Code and its corresponding regulations andrelated guidance. All reimbursements and in-kind benefits provided under the Agreementshall be made or provided in accordance with the requirements of Section 409A of the Code,including, where applicable, the requirement that (i) any reimbursement is for expensesincurred during the Executive’s lifetime (or during a shorter period of time specified inthe Agreement), (ii) the amount of expenses eligible for reimbursement, or in-kind benefitsprovided, during a calendar year may not affect the expenses eligible for reimbursement, orin-kind benefits to be provided, in any other calendar year, (iii) the reimbursement of aneligible expense will be made on or before the last day of the calendar year following theyear in which the expense is incurred, and (iv) the right to reimbursement or in-kindbenefits is not subject to liquidation or exchange for another benefit.”          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has executed this Amendment, in the case of theCompany by its duly authorized officer, as of the date set forth above.
 

 
   Allegheny Energy Service Corporation     /s/ Paul J. Evanson     Name: Paul J. Evanson  Title: Chairman & Chief Executive Officer        /s/ David E. Flitman     David E. Flitman  
 **
§ 102-118.425 Is my agency required to forward all transportation documents to GSA Transportation Audits Division, and what information must be on these documents? ( a ) Yes, your agency must provide all TDs to GSA Transportation Audits Division (see § 102-118.35 for definition TD).
( b ) The following information must be annotated on all TDs and bills that have completed your agency's prepayment audit for submission to GSA Transportation Audits Division: ( 1 ) The date the bill was received from a TSP;
( 2 ) A TSP's invoice number;
( 3 ) Your agency name;
( 4 ) A DRN;
( 5 ) Amount billed;
( 6 ) Date invoice was approved for payment;
( 7 ) Payment date and amount agency paid;
( 8 ) Payment location code number and office name;
( 9 ) Payment voucher number;
( 10 ) Complete contract, tender, or tariff authority, including item or section number;
( 11 ) The TSP's TIN;
( 12 ) The TSP's SCAC;
( 13 ) The auditor's full name, email address, contact telephone number, and authorization code; and
( 14 ) A copy of any statement of difference sent to the TSP.
( c ) Your agency can find additional guidance in the “U.S. Government Freight Transportation Handbook.” This handbook is located at *www.gsa.gov/transaudits .*
#### § 101-26.4904-416 DD Form 416: Purchase Request for Coal, Coke, or Briquettes.

The form illustrated in § 101-26.4904-416 is filed as part of the original document and does not appear in the Federal Register or the Code of Federal Regulations.

Federal Register

[40 FR 31224, July 25, 1975]
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Tri-Isthmus Group, 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.
    
    I am 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; andc.
    
    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.
    
    I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors:
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb.
    
    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: May 16, 2007By:
    
    /s/ David Hirschhorn
David HirschhornCo-Chief Executive Officer and Co-Chief Financial Officer
 73
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ERIC ROGERS,

 Plaintiff Case Number: 0:22-cv-62064-RKA

V.

R & G EQUITIES, LLC.

Defendant

________________________________/

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) hereby gives this Honorable Court notice of

dismissal of this action with prejudice and, unless otherwise agreed, each party shall bear their own 

attorney’s fees and costs.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: November 18, 2022 / s / A l b e r t o R . L e al . 

Alberto R. Leal, Esq., P.A.

Florida Bar No.: 1002345

E-Mail: albertolealesq@gmail.com

Phone: 954-637-1868

Case 0:22-cv-62064-RKA Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2022 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                           DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                             MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                   30,415
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                            296,716
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                              148,011
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         609,654
<PP&E>                                   332,411
<DEPRECIATION>                           114,958
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,053,155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    260,154
<BONDS>                                  175,235
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                                 892
<OTHER-SE>                               412,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,053,155
<SALES>                                  253,450
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         253,450
<CGS>                                    185,698
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            185,698
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       1,993
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          32,637
<INCOME-TAX>                             12,076
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      20,561
<DISCONTINUED>                           (13,713)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                             6,848
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .08
        

</TABLE>
#### PETER NICHOLS, Respondent, *v.*PETER VOORHIES and others, Appellants.

*Court of equity*— *Assessment*— *when set aside "by.*

Appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint.

This action was brought to remove a cloud upon the plaintiff’s title, and to perpetually restrain the collection of an assessment made under the sanction of the legislature, by some of the defendants, commissioners appointed by legislative authority (chap. 670, Laws of 1871), and to restrain the defendant Smith, as collector, from collecting such assessment. It was alleged that the defendants, the commissioners, claimed the assessment was a lien, but the plaintiff clenied this in his complaint, and averred that it was wholly void.

It was further alleged, that an order was made by the County Court appointing commissioners of awards. That these commissioners *308reported their proceedings to the commissioners appointed by the act in *question;*and that they suppressed it, and surreptitiously obtained from the same County Court, an order appointing a new set of commissioners of awards, who made a report upon which the defendants, commissioners, did act. That an appeal was taken, by certain persons interested, from the doings of the commissioners, defendants, under the report .of the second set of commissioners of awards, and judgment entered thereon reversing the second order, and the award made upon the report of the commissioners appointed thereunder, in so far as it related to the appellants.

The General Term *held,*that as it must be assumed that all these orders were on record, there being no averment that any officer had neglected his duty in this respect, and that as such orders, and the appeal from the second award, formed a part of the record of the laying of the assessment, it appeared from .the record itself, conceding the truth of the allegations contained in the complaint, that the assessment was void *in toto;*and that the interposition of a court of equity was, therefore, unnecessary.

*8. J. Groóles,*for appellant. *G. P. Hoffman,*for respondent.

Opinion by

Barnard, P, J.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Tappen and Talcott, JJ.

Order overruling demurrer reversed, and judgment given for defendant on the demurrer, with leave to plaintiff to answer in twenty days, on payment of costs of appeal and of demurrer.
EXHIBIT 21
 SUBSIDIARIES OF DELTA APPAREL, INC.
  (1)
    
    M. J. Soffe, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company.(2)
    
    Junkfood Clothing Company, a Georgia corporation.(3)
    
    To The Game, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company.(4)
    
    Delta Apparel Honduras, S.A., a Honduran sociedad anónima.(5)
    
    Delta Campeche, S.A. de C.V., a Mexican sociedad anónima de capital variable.(6)
    
    Delta Cortes, S.A., a Honduran sociedad anónima.(7)
    
    Campeche Sportswear, S de RL de CV, a Mexican sociedad de responsabilidad de capital variable.(8)
    
    Textiles La Paz, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company.(9)
    
    Ceiba Textiles, S de RL, a Honduran sociedad de responsabilidad limitada.(10)
    
    Atled Holding Company Honduras, S de RL, a Honduran sociedad de responsabilidad limitada.(11)
    
    LaPaz Honduras, S de RL, a Honduran sociedad de responsabilidad limitada.
Exhibit 32
                        American Airlines, Inc.
                             Certification
       Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
   (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
                          United States Code)


Pursuant   to  section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act   of   2002
(subsections  (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63  of  title  18,
United  States  Code), each of the undersigned officers  of  American
Airlines,  Inc.,  a Delaware corporation (the Company),  does  hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2005  (the  Form  10-Q)  of  the  Company  fully  complies  with  the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of  1934  and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in  all  material respects, the financial condition  and  results  of
operations of the Company.

Date:  October 21, 2005            /s/ Gerard J. Arpey
                                   Gerard J. Arpey
                                   Chairman, President and Chief
                                   Executive Officer

Date:  October 21, 2005            /s/ James A. Beer
                                   James A. Beer
                                   Senior Vice President and Chief
                                   Financial Officer



The  foregoing  certification is being furnished solely  pursuant  to
section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections  (a)  and
(b)  of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and
is  not  being  filed  as  part of the Form 10-Q  or  as  a  separate
disclosure document.
#### § 102-34.85 What motor vehicles require motor vehicle identification?

All Government motor vehicles must display motor vehicle identification unless exempted under § 102-34.160, § 102-34.175 or § 102-34.180.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 118 (Monday, June 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15443]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


WAMEX Holdings, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

June 14, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
WAMEX Holdings, Inc. (``WAMEX'') because of questions regarding the 
accuracy of assertions by WAMEX, and by others, in documents sent to 
and statements made to market makers of the stock of WAMEX, other 
broker-dealers, and to investors concerning: (1) WAMEX's ability to 
comply with the Commission's regulations regarding the operation of an 
Alternative Trading System; and (2) funds purportedly raised by WAMEX 
from private investors. In addition, recent market activity in WAMEX 
securities may be the result of manipulative conduct or other illegal 
activity.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the 
Securities Act of 1934, that trading in the above listed company is 
suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, June 14, 2000 through 
11:59 p.m. EDT, on June 27, 2000.

    By the Commission.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-15443 Filed 6-14-00; 4:59 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Cedar Grove Marketing,  Inc. on
Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2003,  as filed  with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, B.
Stephen Bailey, President 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President, Director
(Principal Executive Officer)


April 19, 2004


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 230.30 Scope.

This subpart prescribes procedures governing the disposition of any property (real, personal, tangible, or intangible) obtained by the United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General (Office of Inspector General) for possible use as evidence after the need to retain such property no longer exists.
§ 175.380 Condition and number of fire extinguishers required for recreational vessels built model year 2017 or earlier. Recreational vessels with a model year between 1953 and 2017 must meet the following requirements: ( a ) Previously installed extinguishers with extinguishing capacities that are less than what is required in table 1 to § 175.320(a)(1) or Table 4 to § 175.320(b)(1) need not be replaced but must be maintained in good condition.
( b ) All extinguishers installed after August 22, 2016, must meet the applicable requirements in §§ 175.305 through 175.320.
[USCG-2018-0099, 86 FR 58571, Oct. 22, 2021, as amended at Docket No. USCG-2023-0759, 89 FR 22948, Apr. 3, 2024]
#### Gohn’s License.

*Liquor law*— Retail *license*— Refusal *of license*— Necessity—Discretion *of court*— Remonstrances.

An order refusing a retail liquor license will not be reversed where the judge in the lower court states that the license was not necessary, taking into’ consideration the number of existing licensed places; and this is the case although the record shows that no remonstrances had been filed.

Argued May 4, 1914.

Appeal, No. 141, April T., 1914, by Albert L. Gohn, from order of Q. S.. Somerset Co., Feb. T.,1914, No. 72, refusing a retail liquor license.

Before Rice, P. J., Henderson, Orlady, Head, Porter, Kephart and Trexler, JJ.

Affirmed.

Petition for a retail liquor license.

Ruppel, P. J., made the following order:

These two applications come with strong recom*161mendations and especially with reference to the fitness of the applicants and the character of the houses. They have an additional argument in their favor, that their houses are located in East Windber, whereas all the other licenses are in the western portion of the town; but in view of the fact that there are fully as many licensed houses now as are warranted under the law, the court could not consistently grant these licenses without refusing some of the old houses, and there is nothing to justify the court in taking such a course at this time. There is no evidence before the court that the public, both as to accommodation for travelers and as to drinking, cannot be accommodated satisfactorily by the houses now in existence; and under all the circumstances the court is obliged to refuse these licenses.

May 14, 1914:

*Error assigned*was in refusing license.

*Alexander King,*with him *Scott & Scott,*for appellant.

No printed brief for appellee.

Per Curiam,

The proceedings in this case, as shown by the record, were entirely regular, and no complaint is, or can be made by the appellant, on that score. True, there was no remonstrance, but it is as well settled as anything can be, that no inference of error of law or of abuse of discretion in refusing a liquor license, arises from that fact. Nor is there anything in the opinion filed by the court which warrants an inference that the court proceeded on an erroneous theory as to the nature and extent of its discretionary power or as to the legal principle governing its exercise. On the contrary, the opinion affirmatively shows that the license was refused because the court concluded that it was not necessary, taking into consideration, as the court was justified in doing, the number of existing licensed places. Presumably *162this conclusion was warranted by the facts proved or within the knowledge of the court, and on this appeal must be accepted as final. The proceedings being regular and abuse of discretion not being shown, the order must be affirmed.

Order affirmed.