alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Second Amendment
                                to the
AMP Incorporated Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors


     Pursuant to an action taken by the Board of Directors of AMP Incorporated
on July 22, 1997, the AMP Incorporated Deferred Compensation Plan for
Non-Employee Directors, as amended effective as of October 23, 1996 by the First
Amendment to the AMP Incorporated Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee
Directors (the "Plan"), is further amended effective as of July 22, 1997 in the
following respect:

     1.   Section 8(b)(iii) of the Plan is amended to delete the term "50%" in
          subpart (A) thereof and to substitute the term "66 2/3%" in lieu
          thereof.

     Except as provided above, all terms, conditions and provisions of the Plan
shall remain in full force and effect and without any further change or
modification whatsoever.

Executed this 25th day of September, 1997.

                                        AMP Incorporated
                                        
   Attest:___________________      By:  _________________________
          Corporate Secretary              J. E. Marley
                                           Chairman
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

MEMORANDUM

Date/ Time: July 23, 2010 / 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. 

Subject: Aldicarb Meeting Minutes. OPP Meets with Bayer Crop-Science to Discuss 

 Options for Mitigating Dietary Risks of Concern Resulting from Aldicarb 

 Exposure 

From: K. Avivah Jakob, Chemical Review Manager 

 Re-evaluation Managment and Implimentation Branch IV 

 Pestcide Re-evaulation Division (7508P) 

Partcipants: Anne Overstreet (EPA), K. Avivah Jakob (EPA), Laurel Celeste (EPA), Marianne 

 Mannix (EPA), Richard Keigwin (EPA), Steven Bradbury (EPA); Alan Ayers 

 (Bayer Crop-Science), Bill Fereguson (Bayer Crop-Science), Ian Kelly (Bayer 

 Crop Science), Peg Cherney (Bayer Crop-Science) 

Meeting Minutes: 

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) requested a 

second meeting with Bayer Crop-Science (Bayer) to further discuss possible options to mitigate 

dietary risks of concern identified in EPA’s revised 2010 dieatry exposure and risk assessment 

for aldicarb. The revised 2010 dietary risk assessment is based on comparative cholinesterase 

assay (CCA) and new food and residue data which were recently submitted to the Agency. 

EPA’s revised dietary exposure and risk assessment indicates that aldicarb no longer meets the 

Agency’s rigorous food safety standards and may pose unacceptable dietary risks, especially to 

infants and young children. 

EPA met with Bayer (technical registrant of aldicarb) for a second time on July 23, 2010, as 

follow-up to the July 15, 2010 aldicarb meeting. During the meeting EPA provided Bayer with a 

signed copy of the Aldicarb. Acute Probabilistic Aggregate Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) 

Exposure and Risk Assessment Incorporating Revised FQPA Factor document, dated July 15, 

2010. EPA and Bayer discussed possible options to mitigate dietary risks of concern identified 

in the revised 2010 dietary risk assessment. Mitigation options that were discussed included 

possible maximum application rate reductions and possible cancelation of certain aldicarb uses. 

EPA has requested to meet for a third time with Bayer (during the week of July 25, 2010) to 

further continue its discussions with the registrant to expeditiously address the identified risks of 

concern.
From: Steckel, Andrew

To: Brad Poiriez; mguzzett@arb.ca.gov

Cc: Reyes Romero; Monica Soucier; Zimpfer, Amy; Law, Nicole

Subject: EPA Comment on Imperial Rules

Date: Friday, October 18, 2013 1:24:11 PM

Attachments: image001.png

United States Environmental

 Protection Agency

Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

October 18, 2013

Transmittal of EPA Rule Review Comments

To: Brad Poiriez, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District

bradpoiriez@co.imperial.ca.us

Mike Guzzetta, California Air Resources Board

mguzzett@arb.ca.gov

From: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief

steckel.andrew@epa.gov

Re: Rule 400.3 Internal Combustion Engine(s), draft dated September 05, 2013

and Rule 400.4 Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen From Wallboard Kilns,

draft dated March 22, 2013

We are providing comments based on our preliminary review of the draft rules identified above. Please

direct any questions about our comments to me at (415) 947-4115 or to Nicole Law at (415) 947-4126.

Rule 400.3

Please consider lowering the emission limits in Section C. Examples of analogous rules with lower limits

include San Joaquin Valley Rule 4702, Feather River Rule 3.22, and CARB’s “Determination of

Reasonable Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Technology for Stationary SparkIgnited Internal Combustion Engines” (http://www.arb.ca.gov/ractbarc/rb-iceall.pdf).

Rule 400.4

Please eliminate or revise the startup and shutdown provisions in Section D.1 consistent with national

policy such as that described in 78 FR 12460 (February 22, 2013).

1

2

COMMENT EIGHT (E-MAIL)
§ 302-11.302 What documentation must I submit to my agency to request reimbursement for the sale of a former residence or the purchase of a new one? To request reimbursement for the sale of a former residence or the purchase of a new one, you must submit to your agency: ( a ) Copies of your sales agreement when selling a residence;
( b ) Your purchase agreement when a purchasing a residence;
( c ) Property settlement documents;
( d ) Loan closing statements; and
( e ) Invoices or receipts for other bills paid.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6931

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. COLLINS KUSI SAKYI, a/k/a CK, a/k/a Kwame Kusi, a/k/a Quan , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:06

- cr - 00405

- LMB

- 1 )

Submitted : July 7, 2021 Decided: July 19, 2021

Before MOTZ, KING, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Collins Kusi Sakyi, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Collins Kusi Sakyi appeals the district court’s order denying his motio n for a sentence reduction pursuant to § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222

. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in de nying Sakyi’s m otion. See United States v. C ollington , 9 95 F.3d 34 7, 357

- 58 (4th Cir. 202 1 ) ; United States v. Jackson , 952 F.3d 492, 495

- 96 (4th Cir. 2020) (observing that “the decision whether to grant a reduction is entrusted to the district
court’s discretion”)

. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’ s order. United States v. Sakyi, No. 1:06

- cr - 00405

- LMB

- 1 (E.D. Va. May 6, 2020)

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials bef ore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Document has been coded “B” May be requested under the Freedom of

Information Act Http:// www.epa.gov/pesticide/foia but access is restricted to entities not engaged in the production sale or distribution of pesticides outside the United States
# Comments on: 20-1991: HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. v. VIDAL [ORDER], Nonprecedential
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE TO BE FILED BY AMENDMENT. THE SCHEDULE PREVIOUSLY FILED WAS FILED
DUE TO A TRANSMISSION ERROR AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN SHOULD NOT BE 
RELIED UPON.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                 0      
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0     
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                       0      
<CASH>                                               0     
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0       
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                               0         
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0       
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                      0      
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0     
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0  
<OTHER-SE>                                           0     
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0      
<PREMIUMS>                                           0      
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                  0     
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0     
<BENEFITS>                                           0      
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0    
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0     
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0     
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0     
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0     
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0      
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0    
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0     
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0     
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0      
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
EX-10.14



 Exhibit 10.14 
  





 
 October 27, 2016 

Robert Murphy 
 Dear Robert, 

Snap Inc. (the “Company”) is pleased to confirm the terms of your full-time exempt employment as Chief Technology Officer on the
following terms: 
 You will receive an annual salary of $250,000, which will be paid bi-weekly, less applicable payroll deductions and tax
withholdings. 
 In addition, employees qualify for a range of benefits. The Company may change compensation and benefits at its discretion.

 In your work for the Company, we do not want you to use or disclose any confidential, proprietary, or trade-secret information of any
former employer or other person to whom you owe an obligation of confidentiality. Likewise, as an employee of the Company, you may learn about confidential, proprietary, or trade-secret information related to the Company and its clients that you
must not share with anyone outside the Company. 
 As a Snap Inc. employee, you will be expected to follow Company policies and acknowledge
in writing that you have read our Employee Handbook. With the exception of the “employment at-will” policy discussed below, the Company may modify or eliminate its policies at its discretion. 

Your employment with the Company is at-will. This means that you may terminate your employment with the Company at any time and for any reason
simply by notifying us. Likewise, the Company may terminate your employment at any time and for any reason with no advance notice. Your employment at-will status can be modified only in a written agreement signed by you and the Chief Executive
Officer. 
 By signing this letter, you reaffirm the terms and conditions of the Confidential Information and Inventions Assignment
Agreement, which you signed when you joined the Company. 
 This letter (together with the agreements referenced) is the complete and
exclusive statement of all the terms and conditions of your employment with the Company, and supersedes any prior agreements or representations with regard to your employment. It is entered into without reliance on any promise or representation
other than those expressly contained in this letter, and (except for changes reserved to the Company’s discretion) cannot be modified or amended except in a writing signed by you and a duly authorized member of the Board. This letter is
governed by the laws of California without regard to its conflict-of-laws provisions. 
  

	
	 Sincerely,

	
	 /s/ Evan Spiegel

	 Evan Spiegel, Chief Executive Officer


 Accepted and agreed: 
  

	
	 /s/ Robert Murphy

	Robert Murphy

  

	
	 October 27, 2016

	Date
#### Tommy J. ROGERS v. ALABAMA DEP’T OF CORR.

CR-14-0154

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

03/06/2015

Affirmed
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-Q/A of Moscow CableCom Corp. for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Mikhail A. Smirnov, Chief Executive Officer, and Tate Fite, Chief Financial Officer, each hereby certifies, that, to the best of his 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 results of operations of Moscow CableCom Corp.



|October 24, 2006 | /s/    MIKHAIL A. SMIRNOV
|---------------- | -------------------------
|                 | Mikhail A. Smirnov       
|                 | Chief Executive Officer  
|October 24, 2006 | /s/    TATE FITE         
|                 | Tate Fite                
|                 | Chief Financial Officer  





This certification shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<Page>

EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     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), the
     undersigned officer of American Science & Engineering, Inc., a
     Massachusetts corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such
     officer's knowledge and belief, that: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
     for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 (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 (2) the information contained in the
     Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
     condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Paul Theodore Owens
----------------------------------
Paul Theodore Owens
Interim Chief Financial Officer

November 14, 2002


                                      -29-
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 841

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain works, facilities,

and titles of the Gila Project, and designated lands within or adjacent

to the Gila Project, to the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage

District, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 24, 1999

Mr. PASTOR (for himself, Mr. STUMP, Mr. HAYWORTH, and Mr. KOLBE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain

works, facilities, and titles of the Gila Project, and designated lands within or adjacent to the Gila Project,

to the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District,

and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be referred to as the ‘‘Wellton-Mohawk

5 Transfer Act’’.
2

•HR 841 IH

1 SEC. 2. TRANSFER.

2 The Secretary of the Interior (‘‘Secretary’’) is author3 ized to carry out the terms of the Memorandum of Agree4 ment No. 8–AA–34–WAO14 (‘‘Agreement’’) dated July

5 10, 1998, between the Secretary and the Wellton-Mohawk

6 Irrigation and Drainage District (‘‘District’’) providing

7 for the transfer of works, facilities, and lands to the Dis8 trict, including conveyance of Acquired Lands, Public

9 Lands, and Withdrawn Lands, as defined in the Agree10 ment.

11 SEC. 3. WATER AND POWER CONTRACTS.

12 Notwithstanding the transfer, the Secretary and the

13 Secretary of Energy shall provide for and deliver Colorado

14 River water and Parker-Davis Project Priority Use Power

15 to the District in accordance with the terms of existing

16 contracts with the District, including any amendments or

17 supplements thereto or extensions thereof and as provided

18 under section 2 of the Agreement.

19 SEC. 4. SAVINGS.

20 Nothing in this Act shall affect any obligations under

21 the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (Public

22 Law 93–320; 43 U.S.C. 1571 et seq.).

23 SEC. 5. REPORT.

24 If transfer of works, facilities, and lands pursuant to

25 the Agreement has not occurred by July 1, 2000, the Sec-
3

•HR 841 IH

1 retary shall report on the status of the transfer as pro2 vided in section 5 of the Agreement.

3 SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION.

4 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums

5 as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this

6 Act.

Æ
#### § 302-3.4 If my agency authorizes me allowances for relocation, must it pay all of the expenses listed in § 302-3.2?

Yes, if your agency authorizes you allowances for relocation, it must pay all of the expenses listed in § 302-3.2.
No. D-2661.

#### In re Discipline of Newman.

Lawrence T. Newman, of Bradenton, Fla., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.01

            DIRECT AND INDIRECT SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
                   (without regard to significance)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
----------------------------------------------------------------
                                   JURISDICTION OF
NAME                               INCORPORATION
----------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                               <C>

ICVerify, Inc.                     Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
ICVerify GmbH                      Germany
----------------------------------------------------------------
EZCharge, Inc.                     Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
CyberCash India Private Limited    India
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reston Parkway I, Inc.             Delaware corporation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reston Parkway II, Inc.            Delaware corporation
----------------------------------------------------------------
CyberCash International C.V.       The Netherlands
----------------------------------------------------------------
CC International B.V.              The Netherlands
----------------------------------------------------------------
CyberCash Japan C.V.               The Netherlands
----------------------------------------------------------------
CyberCash K.K.                     Japan
----------------------------------------------------------------
CyberCash Asia Limited             Hong Kong
----------------------------------------------------------------
CyberCash GmbH                     Germany
----------------------------------------------------------------
CyberCash (UK) Limited             United Kingdom
----------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
# Comments on: 22-1710: JAGER PRO, INC. v. W-W MANUFACTURING CO., INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential
TS-CKHI02

Attachment #5

Pt. 2, Sec. A, 2

Worker/Occupational Exposure Informatio n on the New Chemical Substance at

Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter
600 P.2d 1148

#### The STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. James C. MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11997.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Oct. 2, 1979.

Charles F. McDevitt, William J. Pauzauskie, Boise, for defendant-appellant.

David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before SHEPARD, BAKES, and BISTLINE, JJ., and MAYNARD and WALTERS, JJ., Pro Tem.

PER CURIAM:

The evidence introduced on behalf of the State shows that two correctional officers at the penitentiary observed defendant-appellant light an explosive device and throw it from his cell into a corridor near the two correctional officers. The device exploded and thereafter small nails and pieces of broken plastic were found near the spot where the explosion occurred.

Two witnesses, both inmates of the penitentiary and occupants of nearby cells, were called by defendant-appellant. Neither witness saw the bomb lit nor heard it explode.

Defendant-appellant urges that his witnesses were not able to express themselves as to what actually happened in the corridor, and that two other inmates of the penitentiary were not subpoenaed to testify in his behalf. He contends that one of the witnesses was not called for personal reasons of the defense attorney and not for reasons of the defendant-appellant. For these reasons, the ineffective assistance of counsel contributed to his conviction.

The burden of showing error on appeal is that of the defendant. *State v. Gowin,*99 Idaho 195, 579 P.2d 672 (1978).

A defendant is not entitled to prevail on appeal on an ineffectiveness of counsel claim unless he shows that he was prejudiced by ineffective conduct of counsel of a nature which can be objectively determined from the record. *State v. Tucker,*97 Idaho 4, 539 P.2d 556 (1975).

The Court will not attempt to second guess strategic and tactical choices of trial counsel. *State v. Perez,*99 Idaho 181, 579 P.2d 127 (1978).

We affirm.