alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.7



Insight Communications Company, Inc.

810 7thAvenue

New York, NY 10019



October 9, 2003



Dinesh C. Jain

Insight Communications Company, Inc.

810 7thAvenue, 41stFloor

New York, New York 10019



Dear Dinni:



Confirming our discussions, you will assume the position of Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Insight Communications Company, Inc., effective immediately. The terms of employment for your new
position will be:



Salary: Your annualized base salary will be
$500,000, effective October 1, 2003.



Bonus: For each of calendar
year 2003 and calendar year 2004, you shall be paid a bonus equal to 50% of the total amount of base salary paid to you during such calendar year, which bonus shall be guaranteed and subject only to you continuing to be an employee at the end of
such year. Thereafter you will be eligible for a bonus up to 50% of your annual salary, assuming you continue to be an employee and achieve all corporate and individual performance goals, all as determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board
of Directors. Any such bonus will be payable at such time as other bonuses are paid with respect to the relevant period, and in accordance with normal payroll policies.



Restricted Stock: On the date hereof, Insight will issue you 125,000 shares of restricted common stock of Insight. The
restricted stock will vest at the rate of 20% per year on each November 15 beginning with November 15, 2004, provided you are still an employee of Insight on the vesting date. If your employment with Insight terminates before this restricted stock
is fully vested, you will forfeit all shares of restricted stock that are not vested on the date of your termination.



Vacation: You will be eligible for four (4) weeks of vacation per year.



This letter supersedes our employment letter of December 12, 2001. If these terms are acceptable, please sign and date the attached copy of
this letter and return it to me.



Sincerely,



|Michael Willner
|---------------
|               
|Accepted:      
|               
|               
|Date:
Dismiss and Opinion Filed September 27, 2018 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00737-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF O.D.F., A CHILD 

On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-15-23736 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers 

Opinion by Justice Francis 

 This is a restricted appeal from the trial court’s January 25, 2017 order in suit affecting the 

parent-child relationship. The clerk’s record reflects appellant did not participate in person or 

through counsel in the hearing that resulted in the challenged order and he did not timely file a 

post-judgment motion or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. See TEX. R. APP. P.

30. Accordingly, the notice of appeal was due no later than July 24, 2017 or, with an extension 

motion, no later than August 8, 2017. See id. 26.1(c), 26.3. The notice of appeal, however, was 

not filed until June 27, 2018, almost a year later. 

 Because the timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, we directed appellant to file 

a letter brief addressing the Court’s concern. See Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney, 

L.L.C., 302 S.W.3d 542, 545 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (op. on reh’g). Appellant 
 –2– 

complied, but his letter does not demonstrate we have jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, 

we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

180737F.P05 

 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF O.D.F., A CHILD 

No. 05-18-00737-CV 

 On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-15-23736. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, 

Justices Bridges and Lang-Miers 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

 We ORDER appellee Arianne Nayeli Fernandez recover her costs, if any, of this appeal 

from appellant Omar Dario Fernandez. 

Judgment entered September 27, 2018.
AFS-13-369-E

June 13, 2013

 Exemption No. 10796

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0429

Ms. Elizabeth Nickle

Parent of Emma Webster

10612 Mapleleaf Drive

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

Dear Ms. Nickle:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received May 7, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Emma Webster for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Emma to exceed the 

specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by 

AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States 

(U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Emma.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using 

restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security 

in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the 
2

petition, if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by 

persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Emma Webster an exemption from § 121.311(b). In 

addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Emma is

aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary 

to allow her to use an FAA-approved CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Emma’s parents or 

a caregiver accompanying her. Emma Webster may only occupy a passenger seat with no 

passenger seated behind her. In addition, Emma’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of 

this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours 

before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service

Enclosure
# EUR-Lex - 12008M033 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008M033

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union - TITLE V: GENERAL PROVISIONS ON THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION AND SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ON THE COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY - Chapter 2: Specific provisions on the common foreign and security policy - Section 1: Common provisions - Article 33 (ex Article 18 TEU) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0034 - 0034 *

Article 33

(ex Article 18 TEU)

The Council may, on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, appoint a special representative with a mandate in relation to particular policy issues. The special representative shall carry out his mandate under the authority of the High Representative.

--------------------------------------------------
Date of 

report 

1970 

.Tuly 22 

&ruutr nf t4r luittb jtuttli 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION {Convened January 3, 1969 

Adjourned December 23, 1969 

SECOND SESSION {Convened January 19, 1970 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Prepared under the direction of FRANCIS R. V ALEO, Secretary of the Senate 

By GERALD A. HACKETT, Executive Clerk 

Thursday, July 23, 1970 

NOMINATIONS 

CBlendar Message Name of nommee Ofll.ce Predecessor 

No No 

AMBASSADOR 

116 153 .John G Hurd, of exa~ ---- Ambassador Extraotdmary 

and Plempotenttary of I 

the Umted States of I 

Amenca to the Repubhc I 

of Sout h Afr1ca I 

NOMINATIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY'S DESK 

In the Diplomatic and Foreign Serv1ce 

The noromatwns begmnmg Helmut Sonnenfeldt, to be a Fore1gn ServJCe officer of class 1, a consular officer, 

and a 'lecretary m the d!ploroat!C e of the Umted States of Aroenca, and endmg La Rue I-I Velott, to be 

a consular officer of the Umted States of Aroenca, whwh noromatlonb were rece1ved by the Senate and appeared 

m the Congresswnal Record on Mar 11, 1970 

48-022-7Q-No 199 U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1970
Argued and submitted August 18, 1993,

reversed and remanded for reconsideration March 2, 1994

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of James W. Nicholls, Claimant. ITT HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP and Cotter and Company, *Petitioners, v.*James W. NICHOLLS, *Respondent.*

(WCB 91-01349; CA A77429)

871 P2d 125

Stephen R. Frank argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Alison K. Greene and Tooze Shenker Duden Creamer Frank Hutchison.

Michael Dehner argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Daniel J. DeNorch and Schneider, DeNorch & Galaviz-Stoller.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Landau, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*634PER CURIAM

Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board holding that the Board did not have jurisdiction to determine whether chiropractic care that claimant had received was approved by claimant’s attending physician and whether the treatment was palliative or curative.1

We recently held that a dispute over whether medical treatment that has already been received is palliative or curative is a matter covered by ORS 656.327(1), which, under *Meyers v. Darigold, Inc.,*123 Or App 217, 861 P2d 352 (1993), the Board may resolve as long as no party has sought review by the director of the Department of Insurance and Finance. *Theodore v. Safeway Stores, Inc.,*125 Or App 172, 865 P2d 404 (1993). We conclude that a dispute over whether the treatment that has already been provided was approved by the claimant’s attending physician is similarly within the purview of ORS 656.327(1). Because no party has sought review by the director, the Board has jurisdiction to resolve both disputes. We remand for the Board to exercise its jurisdiction.

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

1

 Employer’s initial denial was based on ORS 656.245(3)(b)(A), which requires that, when certain services are provided by other than an attending physician, there must be written authorization by the claimant’s attending physician. Employer asserted that the physician who authorized claimant’s treatments was not claimant’s attending physician. Employer then supplemented its denial, asserting that the chiropractic care was palliative and therefore not compensable under ORS 656.245(1)(b).
**EXHIBIT
      32.1 – CEO Certification**








**HEARTLAND,
      INC.**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUNT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Heartland, Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Terry Lee, Chief
      Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





2.         The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and
      for
      the period covered by the Report.








/s/
      Terry Lee


Terry
      Lee, CEO


And
      Chairman of the Board of Directors





August
      20, 2007





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 ("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 required by Section 906, has been
      provided to Heartland, Inc., and will be retained by Heartland, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
# EUR-Lex - 12006M003 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006M003

**Treaty on European Union (consolidated version) - Title I - Common provisions - Article 3 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0011 - 0011 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0011 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0153 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 191 , 29/07/1992 P. 0004 *

Article 3

The Union shall be served by a single institutional framework which shall ensure the consistency and the continuity of the activities carried out in order to attain its objectives while respecting and building upon the acquis communautaire.

The Union shall in particular ensure the consistency of its external activities as a whole in the context of its external relations, security, economic and development policies. The Council and the Commission shall be responsible for ensuring such consistency and shall cooperate to this end. They shall ensure the implementation of these policies, each in accordance with its respective powers.

--------------------------------------------------
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 Salon Media Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Conrad
Lowry, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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



                                          /s/ Conrad Lowry
                                          ----------------
           November 13, 2006              Conrad Lowry
                                          Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
# EUR-Lex - 12008E156 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E156

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART THREE: UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS - TITLE X: SOCIAL POLICY - Article 156 (ex Article 140 TEC) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0117 - 0117 *

Article 156

(ex Article 140 TEC)

With a view to achieving the objectives of Article 151 and without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaties, the Commission shall encourage cooperation between the Member States and facilitate the coordination of their action in all social policy fields under this Chapter, particularly in matters relating to:

- employment,

- labour law and working conditions,

- basic and advanced vocational training,

- social security,

- prevention of occupational accidents and diseases,

- occupational hygiene,

- the right of association and collective bargaining between employers and workers.

To this end, the Commission shall act in close contact with Member States by making studies, delivering opinions and arranging consultations both on problems arising at national level and on those of concern to international organisations, in particular initiatives aiming at the establishment of guidelines and indicators, the organisation of exchange of best practice, and the preparation of the necessary elements for periodic monitoring and evaluation. The European Parliament shall be kept fully informed.

Before delivering the opinions provided for in this Article, the Commission shall consult the Economic and Social Committee.

--------------------------------------------------
#### § 404.2 Authority and functions.

The general functions of the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC or Commission), as provided by statute, 36 U.S.C. 2101 *et seq.,* are to build and maintain suitable memorials commemorating the service of American Armed Forces and to maintain permanent American military cemeteries in foreign countries.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING E N B ANC

Appellate case name: Pharus Funding , LLC as Assignee of LHR, Inc. v Jorge J. Garcia

Appellate case number: 01

- 20

- 00411

- CV

Trial court case number: 845221

Trial court: County Civil Court at L aw N o . 2 of Harris County

Date motion filed: August 27, 2021

Party filing motion: App el lant

The en banc court has unanimously voted to deny appellant’s motion for en banc r ehearing

. It is ordered that the motion is denied

.

Judge’s signature:

____

/s/ Julie Countiss

___________ Acting for the En Banc Court

* En banc court consists of Chief Just ice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau,

Hightower, Countiss, Rivas

- Molloy, Guerra, and Farris

.

Date: January 11, 2022
# EUR-Lex - 12005SPN03/03 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12005SPN03/03

**Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union - Annex III:List referred to in Article 16 of the Protocol: adaptations to acts adopted by the institutions - 3.Transport policy **

*
Official Journal L 157 , 21/06/2005 P. 0086 - 0086 *

3. TRANSPORT POLICY

31996 L 0026: Council Directive 96/26/EC of 29 April 1996 on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of establishment in national and international transport operations (OJ L 124, 23.5.1996, p. 1), as amended by:

- 31998 L 0076: Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1.10.1998 (OJ L 277, 14.10.1998, p. 17),

- 12003 T: Act concerning the conditions of accession and the adjustments to the Treaties — Accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic (OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 33),

- 32004 L 0066: Council Directive 2004/66/EC of 26.4.2004 (OJ L 168, 1.5.2004, p. 35).

(a) The following paragraphs are added to Article 10:

"11. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, certificates issued to road transport operators before the date of accession in Bulgaria shall only be deemed equivalent to the certificates issued pursuant to the provisions of this Directive if they have been issued to:

- international road haulage and passenger transport operators under Ordinance No 11 of 31 October 2002 on International Carriage of Passengers and Goods by Road (State Gazette No 108 of 19 November 2002), since 19 November 2002;

- domestic road haulage and passenger transport operators under Ordinance 33 of 3 November 1999 on Public Carriage of Passengers and Goods on the territory of Bulgaria, as amended on 30 October 2002 (State Gazette No 108 of 19 November 2002), since 19 November 2002.

12. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, certificates issued to road transport operators before the date of accession in Romania shall only be deemed equivalent to the certificates issued pursuant to the provisions of this Directive if they have been issued to international and domestic road haulage and road passenger transport operators under Order of Minister of Transport No 761 of 21 December 1999 on appointing, training and professional certification of persons coordinating permanently and effectively road transport activity, since 28 January 2000."

(b) In Article 10b, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:

"The professional competence certificates referred to in paragraphs 4 to 12 of Article 10 may be reissued by the Member States concerned in the form of the certificate set out in Annex Ia.".

--------------------------------------------------
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 28, 2016

a0620 

# Order

Clerk June 28, 2016

150135(33)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150135

COA: 321882

Macomb CC: 2012

- 001506

- FH;

2012

- 001507

- FH

KEITH LEO OLSON

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 29,

2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, becau se it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
§ 331.8 Picnicking. ( a ) Picnicking is permitted only in designated areas.
( b ) Picnickers shall remove all personal equipment and clean their sites upon departure.