alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2003 10-K Exhibit 10.116.2




Exhibit 10.116.2


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - CORPORATE
HEADQUARTERS
3975 East Bayshore Road
























         Palo Alto,
California  94303

Phone 650.962.9115 x1279

Fax 650.967.0182

swestra@southwall.com


December 17, 2003


Mr. Andrew Kwan

Director

Globamatrix Holdings Pte. Ltd.

PSB Science Park Annex

3 Science Park Drive #02-16

Singapore 118223

Singapore


 

Dear Andrew,


My apologies for being late in getting this letter to you, summarizing the
meeting we had in Tokyo on October 30th and 31st 2003 with
you, Col. Wee, Dennis Capovilla and myself to discuss the existing Distribution
Agreement, dated January 1, 2002. We have agreed to the following:


 
1. 2003 Purchase Orders



The Minimum Purchase Amount for 2003 would be $7.6MM , as previously agreed
in the letter of August 28, 2003.  For any discrepancy between this agreed
amount and the projected amount for 2003, additional orders would be placed, or
credit against the 2004 quota would be given.


 

2. 2004 Purchase Orders 



The Minimum Purchase Amount for 2004 is $9MM.


A further incremental amount of $1 MM would be contingent upon:

     i. Southwall commencing patent infringement litigation with  a "Cease
and desist"   

        letter issued in Q1 '04 to CPF regarding their VS-70;  and

     ii.Introduction of a new film by Southwall with improved durability
(reduced 

        corrosion), before the end of Q1  '04.


 

3. Sputtered film-only



GMX could purchase sputtered film only, in addition to the above Minimum
Purchase Amount, without obligation for incremental converted film purchase.

  

4. Accelerated 2004 purchase orders



Approximately $1MM from 2004 orders were considered for being placed in Q4
2003.  Terms had to be finalized.




 

Please sign and date this letter below and return a copy to my attention as a
confirmation and agreement of our understanding.


.

Best regards,


 

Sicco Westra


Dr. Sicco W.T. Westra

VP Business Development

Southwall Technologies Inc


 

Read and agreed,


 

 

 

Andrew Kwan

Director

Globamatrix Holdings Pte Ltd


 

CC: Dennis Capovilla; Tom Hood
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**








**OHIO
      EDISON
      COMPANY**





**CONSENT
      OF
      INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
      hereby consent to
      the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No.
      33-49413, 33-51139, 333-01489 and 333-05277) of Ohio Edison Company of our
      report dated February 27, 2006 relating to the consolidated financial statements
      which appears in the Annual Report to Stockholders, which is incorporated in
      this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by
      reference of our report dated February 27, 2006 relating to the financial
      statement schedules, which appears in this Form 10-K.








PricewaterhouseCoopers
      LLP


Cleveland,
      Ohio


February 27,
      2006

















109
Docket: EBSA-2010-0007 

Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options for Participants and Beneficiaries in 

Retirement Plans 

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0007-0001 

Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options 

Document: EBSA-2010-0007-DRAFT-0018 

Comment on FR Doc # N/A 

Submitter Information 

Name: Private Notforpublication 

Address: 

Atlanta, GA, 

Organization: Private 

General Comment 

"Options" often turn into requirements. For that reason, I adamantly oppose this possibly veiled 

attempt to to gain control of individual retirement accounts by federalizing ALL private pension 

fund monies in the future. 

Much has been written about this, and examples can be seen here and some other links at the 

bottom of this article - 

http://moneymorning.com/2010/01/27/retirement-plans/ 

I love my country, but fear my government. 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: February 17, 2010 

Received: February 04, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80a8db2e 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 2/17/2010
#### Elizabeth M. Crosby, Appellant, v. Eliza Fitzpatrick, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to abide event. Opinion by Brady, J.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE : APPEAL O F DISTRICT ATTORNEY 'S DENIAL O F PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT OF CHARYN HAMELLY AGAINST DEFENDANT CHERRY LYNNE POTEET

PETITION OF: CHARYN HAMELLY :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 505 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of June, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0593.html[7/21/2015 6:36:38 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-mkfk

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0593

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Joe Champion

General Comment

I am in control of my money! Im sick of Obama and his slave master mentality. I am an individual and i do not

 and will not have the government contoling every aspect of my life! I do my own investing, if other people are

 not wise enough to save for their future then so be it. You get what you give.
§ 92.21 Deduction from pay. ( a ) After other, less severe collection actions have failed, the DOT operating element (see § 92.5(g)) may implement steps to obtain collection by salary offset. The method and the amount of the salary offset shall be the method and amount stated in the creditor agency's demand letter (see § 92.11) or notice (see § 92.7), or, if applicable, in the decision of an administrative law judge or other hearing official after an employee-requested hearing on the matter. If a DOT operating element is the creditor, the procedures stated in § 92.11 shall be followed.
( b ) Before a collection by salary offset may be made, the chief of the accounting or finance office of the paying DOT operating element shall be furnished with certified documentation by the creditor agency indicating that the creditor agency has sent the employee a demand letter pursuant to § 92.11 of this part stating as a minimum: ( 1 ) The nature and amount of the indebtedness and the intention of the agency to initiate, at the expiration of thirty days, a proceeding to collect the debt by salary offset; and an explanation of the rights of the employee under this subsection;
( 2 ) That the employee has the opportunity to inspect and copy Government records relating to the debt;
( 3 ) That the employee has an opportunity to enter into a written agreement with the agency to establish a schedule for the repayment of the debt;
( 4 ) That the employee has an opportunity for a hearing on the determination of the agency concerning the existence or the amount of the debt, and in the case of an individual whose repayment schedule is established other than by a written agreement as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section concerning the terms of the repayment schedule; and
( 5 ) That the creditor agency's regulations implementing 5 U.S.C. 5514 have been approved by OPM (see 5 CFR 550.1108(a)).
( c ) Where a hearing has been held, a copy of the decision of the administrative law judge or other hearing official must be furnished to the chief of the accounting or finance office of the paying DOT operating element before collection of the indebtedness by salary offset may be initiated. The method and amount of the offset will be as stated in the decision.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 393

Concerning the rise in anti-Semitism in Europe.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 18, 2002

Mr. CROWLEY (for himself, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. LANTOS, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island,

Mr. NADLER, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. WEINER, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. HILLIARD, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr.

RODRIGUEZ, Mr. HOLT, Ms. ESHOO, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr.

WAXMAN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. KING, Mr. MEEHAN,

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. DEUTSCH, Mrs. LOWEY,

Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. FROST, and Mr. BLUMENAUER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International

Relations

RESOLUTION

Concerning the rise in anti-Semitism in Europe.

Whereas there has been a significant rise in anti-Semitic attacks on Jewish people and Jewish institutions in Europe

during the last 18 months;

Whereas the continued violence in the Middle East has fueled

anti-Semitic sentiments in Europe;

Whereas on March 31, 2002, the Or Aviv synagogue in

Marseille, France, was burned to the ground by anti-Semitic arsonists;
2

•HRES 393 IH

Whereas on March 30, 2002, Shneur Zalman Teldon and Zev

Goldberg, Yeshiva students from New Jersey, were brutally beaten on the streets of Berlin, Germany, in an

anti-Semitic attack;

Whereas in April 2002, supporters of Swiss Ambassador to

Germany, Thomas Borer, alleged that he was removed

from his post as a result of a ‘‘Jewish plot’’ against him;

Whereas in Belgium, many anti-Semitic attacks have been reported against Jewish institutions including a gasoline

bomb attack on a Brussels synagogue;

Whereas on April 11, 2002 in Bondy, France, fifteen hooded

attackers wielding sticks and metal bars assaulted a teenage soccer team from the Maccabi Bondy association

after making anti-Semitic remarks; and

Whereas anti-Semitic attacks have impacted every nation in

Europe: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that—

3 (1) the governments of Europe should take all

4 necessary steps to protect the safety and well-being

5 of their respective Jewish communities; and

6 (2) the governments of Europe should make a

7 concerted effort to cultivate an atmosphere of co8 operation and reconciliation among the Jewish and

9 non-Jewish residents of Europe.

Æ
#### In the Matter of the New York, West Shore and Buffalo Railroad Company to Acquire Lands of William Lounsberry and others.

— Order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Boardman, J.
#### T. L. Camp et al. v. The State.

No. 960.

Decided April 13, 1898.

1. Scire Facias—Answer of Sureties—Practice.

On the trial of a scire facias upon a forfeited recognizance, where the court refused to permit the sureties to withdraw their original answer, but did permit them to file and did consider what they termed their “plea in abatement;” Held, no error is shown. Following Camp v. State, ante, p. 142.

*2.*Recognizance—Date of Execution—Variance.

Where the scire facias recited, that the recognizance was entered into on the 23d day of January, and the recognizance showed, on its face, that it was entered into on the day of January (stating no dates), Held, this is no variance. It would have been a variance had the recognizance named a day different from that stated in the scire facias.

Appeal from the District Court of Williamson. Tried below before Hon. R E. Brooks.

*144Appeal from a judgment final for $500 on a forfeited recognizance.

This is a companion case to Camp v. State, ante, p. 142.

Mo statement necessary.

*T. L. Gamp, J. M. Edwards,*and *0 eland & Littleton,*for appellants.

*W. W. Walling*and *Mann Trice,*Assistant Attornejr-General, for the State.

DAVID SOM, Judge.

Judgment final was entered against appellants, as sureties, on a forfeited recognizance. Their principal, John D. Mills, was required by recognizance to appear before the District Court of Williamson County, then in session, to answer a charge of forgery. The appellants were his sureties in that recognizance. Default being made, forfeiture was taken, judgment nisi entered, and scire facias issued. Appellants answered by general demurrer and general denial. Subsequently, they sought to withdraw their original answer, and filed what they termed a “plea in abatement.” The court refused to permit their original answer to be withdrawn, but permitted them to file said plea in abatement, and considered it on the hearing of the cause. The judgment final was entered, and appellants ask a reversal because of this action of the court. In this, we think, there was no error. See Camp v. State (just decided), ante, p. 142.

When the recognizance was offered in evidence, appellants reserved an exception to its introduction, because there was a variance between the citation served upon the defendant and the recognizance, as to the day upon which said recognizance was executed. The citation recited that it was entered into on the 23d day of January, and the recognizance showed on its face that it was entered into on the-- day of January. This is not a variance. The recognizance sets out no day, leaves it blank ; whereas the citation specifies the day. Had the recognizance recited one day, and the citation a different day, there would have been a variance. It would have been, perhaps, better pleading for the citation to have alleged that, while the recognizance was silent as to the day, it was in fact entered into on the 23d day of January. But this is not presented in the bill of exceptions. The remaining questions in this case are the same as in Camp v. State (just decided), ante, p. 142. The judgment is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
#### § 551.57 Who may sign the Designation by Foreign Manufacturer?

Only an official or employee of the foreign manufacturer with authority to appoint an agent may sign the Designation by Foreign Manufacturer.
H. Res. 609

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

November 14, 2002.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R.

5063) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special rule for members of the uniformed services in

determining the exclusion of gain from the sale of a principal

residence and to restore the tax exempt status of death gratuity payments to members of the uniformed services, with

the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the

House, without intervention of any point of order, a single

motion offered by the chairman of the Committee on Ways

and Means or his designee that the House concur in each of

the Senate amendments with the respective amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying

this resolution. The Senate amendments and the motion shall

be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one

hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the committee on Ways and

Means. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
2

•HRES 609 EH

on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion or

demand for division of the question.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### § 845.10 Right of representation.

Any person who appears to testify at an investigative hearing has the right to be accompanied, represented, or advised by counsel or by any other representative.
Executive Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.11 
  
 Statement Regarding the Semtech Executive Compensation Plan 
  
 The Company has established a deferred compensation plan under which executives selected by the Compensation Committee of
the Board of Directors, including named executive officers, may defer up to 100% of their salary, as defined by the plan. Documents related to this plan are attached as Exhibits 10.12, 10.13 and 10.14 of this Form 10K. 
  
 As currently implemented, the Company will match dollar for dollar up to the
first 20% of employee contributions for the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Operating Officer positions; up to the first 15% for participants at the Vice President level; and up to the first 10% for other participants.
```

[107th Congress Public Law 170]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ170.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 133]]

Public Law 107-170
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To extend for 8 additional months the period for which chapter 12 of 
    title 11 of the United States Code is reenacted. <<NOTE: May 7, 
                         2002 -  [H.R. 4167]>> 

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 149 of title I of division C of Public Law 105-277, as 
amended by Public Laws 106-5, 106-70, 107-8, and <<NOTE: 11 USC 1201-
1208, 1221-1231, and 1201 note.>>  107-17, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``October 1, 2001'' each place it appears 
        and inserting ``June 1, 2002''; and
            (2) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by striking ``May 31, 2001'' and inserting 
                ``September 30, 2001''; and
                    (B) by striking ``June 1, 2001'' and inserting 
                ``October 1, 2001''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. <<NOTE: 11 USC 1201 note.>> 

    The amendments made by section 1 shall take effect on October 1, 
2001.

    Approved May 7, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4167:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
            Apr. 16, considered and passed House.
            Apr. 23, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
---

Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Garry L. Anselmo, Chief Executive Officer of Silverado Gold
Mines Ltd. (the "Registrant"), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of the
Registrant;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this annual 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 annual
report;

4. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and we
have:

a) designed such disclosure controls
and procedures 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 annual report is
being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the
Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days
prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures
based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's auditors and
the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the
design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the
Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and
have identified for the Registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
Registrant's internal controls; and

6. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have
indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in
internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

Date: February 28, 2008

By: /s/ Garry L. AnselmoGarry L. Anselmo,
Chief Executive Officer

---
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 03887

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 03887\03887_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03887\03887_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

03887\03887_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 03887\03887_PartA.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 03887\03887_PartB.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 03887\03887_PartC.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 03887\03887_PartD.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 03887\03887_PartH.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

03887\Certification Statement Plant ID 03887.pdf Plant certification statement

x 03887\Supplemental Documents\03887_Belle River Pond-2 spd-5.pptx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03887\Supplemental Documents\03887_Belle River spd 1234.pptx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03887\Supplemental Documents\03887_BRPP Water Balance.docx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

03887\Supplemental Documents\03887_New Image.PNG Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7543

LAKEITHON M. HALL, a/k/a Lakeithan Hall, Petitioner – Appellant,

v. MCKITHER BODISON, Warden Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (8:08-cv-02468-RBH)

Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 21, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lakeithon M. Hall, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lakeithon M. Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El

v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hall 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED