alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.12
                                 AMENDMENT No. 8

                                       to

                     THE AMETEK RETIREMENT AND SAVINGS PLAN

         WHEREAS, there was adopted and made effective as of October 1, 1984,
The AMETEK Retirement and Savings Plan (the "Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, the Plan was amended and restated in its entirety, effective
January 1, 1997; and

         WHEREAS, Section 10.1 of the Plan provides that AMETEK, Inc. ("AMETEK")
may amend the Plan at any time, and from time to time; and

         WHEREAS, AMETEK now desires to amend the Plan in certain respects;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         FIRST: The first sentence of Section 6.6 of the Plan is deleted and the
following is substituted:

                  "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Plan to the
         contrary, if the total value of a Participant's, Retirement
         Participant's, Former Participant's or Former Retirement Participant's
         Accounts is $5,000 or less, the Committee shall pay such benefit in a
         single lump sum as soon as practicable after the retirement,
         termination, Disability or death of the Participant, Retirement
         Participant, Former Participant or Former Retirement Participant, and
         any such distribution to the Participant, Retirement Participant,
         Former Participant, Former Retirement Participant or his Beneficiary,
         as the case may be, shall be in complete discharge of the Plan's
         obligation with respect to such benefit."



<PAGE>   2


         SECOND: The provisions of this Amendment No. 8 shall be effective as of
January 1, 1999.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, AMETEK has caused these presents to be executed, in
its corporate name, by its duly authorized officer on this 30th day of April,
1999.


                                         AMETEK, Inc.

                                         By: /s/ Donna F. Winquist
                                             ---------------------

Attest:


/s/ Kathryn E. Londra
----------------------
# Official Journal L 394/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 394 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6324 November 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 394

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6324 November 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1750 of 15 October 2020 establishing a fisheries closure for anglerfish in areas 8a, 8b, 8d and 8e for vessels flying the flag of Belgium | 1 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1751 of 17 November 2020 conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name ‘Würzburger Stein-Berg’ (PDO) | 4 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1752 of 23 November 2020 amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards the entry for Australia in the list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which certain poultry commodities may be imported into or transit through the Union in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza (
  1
  ) | 5 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1750 of 15 October 2020 establishing a fisheries closure for anglerfish in areas 8a, 8b, 8d and 8e for vessels flying the flag of Belgium

1

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1751 of 17 November 2020 conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name ‘Würzburger Stein-Berg’ (PDO)

4

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1752 of 23 November 2020 amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards the entry for Australia in the list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which certain poultry commodities may be imported into or transit through the Union in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza (
  1
  )

1

5

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,876
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       43
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (16)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,071
<PP&E>                                           4,413
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,887)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,937
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,708
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,662
<SALES>                                         12,365
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,365
<CGS>                                            9,549
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,549
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,833
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  14
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,123
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (22)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,145
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,235
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        

</TABLE>
Artisoft, Inc. and Subsidiaries
             EXHIBIT 11. COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Three Months Ended              Six Months Ended
                                                              December  31,                  December  31,
                                                           1997           1996            1997           1996
                                                         --------       --------        --------       --------
<S>                                                      <C>            <C>             <C>            <C>      
Net income (loss)                                        $  1,298       $ (1,950)       $  1,536       $ (5,335)
                                                         ========       ========        ========       ======== 

Weighted average common shares outstanding                 14,529         14,536          14,529         14,530

   Common equivalent shares representing
   shares issuable upon exercise of stock
   options (1)                                                 83            N/A              39            N/A
                                                         --------       --------        --------       -------- 

       Diluted weighted average shares outstanding         14,612         14,536          14,568         14,530
                                                         ========       ========        ========       ========


Basic net income (loss) per share                        $    .09       $   (.13)       $    .11       $   (.37)
                                                         ========       ========        ========       ========
Diluted net income (loss) per share                      $    .09       $   (.13)       $    .11       $   (.37)
                                                         ========       ========        ========       ========

</TABLE>
------
Notes:
(1) Amount calculated using the treasury stock method and fair market values
                                       20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

GARY A. RICHARDSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND POLICE

DEPARTMENT, et al. ,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5382FDB

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff and his two minor children bring this lawsuit against the City of Bremerton and its

police department as well as individual police officers; The Washington State Department of

Corrections and individual corrections officers; the Kitsap County Prosecutor’s Office and individual

deputy prosecutors; the Bremerton City Prosecutor’s Office and the Bremerton City Prosecutor; the

Sixth District Congressional Office and Congressman Norm Dicks; and two Superior Court Judges,

Sally Olsen and Jay Roof. Due Process and civil rights violations under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 are

alleged.

Plaintiff applies to proceed in forma pauperis, indicating that he receives from Department of

Social and Health Services $546.00 per month. On the record shown, the Court concludes that

Plaintiffs’ proceeding IFP is inappropriate. ACCORDINGLY, 

IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 

DATED this 18th day of July, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05382-FDB Document 3 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 1 of 1

Richardson et al vs Bremerton City of et al Doc. 3

Dockets.Justia.com
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Page 1 ORDER - [C05-5790RBL]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

DANIEL R. BLANTON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant

Civil No. C05-5790RBL

ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Based upon the Stipulation between the parties it is hereby ORDERED that the Defendant

shall have an extension to and including August 17, 2006, to file Defendant’s answering brief. It

is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have to and including August 31, 2006, to file Plaintiff’s

Reply Brief.

DATED this 17th day of July, 2006.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05790-RBL Document 19 Filed 07/17/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Page 2 ORDER - [C05-5790RBL]

Presented by:

s/ STEPHANIE R. MARTZ WSB # 28636

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

Office of the General Counsel

701 Fifth Ave, Ste 2900

Seattle, WA 98104

Phone: (206) 615-2272

Fax: (206)615-2531

stephanie.martz@ssa.gov

Case 3:05-cv-05790-RBL Document 19 Filed 07/17/06 Page 2 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

LAWRENCE M. MARTIN,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF UTTECHT,

Respondent.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: C06-1092-RSL-MAT

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

This matter comes before the Court on petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel.

The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s motion, and the balance of the record, does hereby find

and ORDER as follows:

(l) Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 16) is DENIED. There

is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d

1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court may exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for a

financially eligible individual where the "interests of justice so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.

However, petitioner fails to satisfy the Court that the interests of justice are best served by

appointment counsel at this time.

Case 2:06-cv-01092-RSL Document 19 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

PAGE -2

(2) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to petitioner and to the Hon. Robert S.

Lasnik.

DATED this 22nd day of August, 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01092-RSL Document 19 Filed 08/22/06 Page 2 of 2
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 127

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the planned state visit to

the United States by the President of the People’s Republic of China.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 25, 1997

Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. HELMS, and Mr.

WELLSTONE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on Foreign Relations

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the planned

state visit to the United States by the President of

the People’s Republic of China.

Whereas the President of the People’s Republic of China is

tentatively scheduled to begin a state visit in Washington,

D.C., on October 29, 1997;

Whereas a state visit, unlike a working-level visit, involves the

highest-level protocol that can be afforded a foreign head

of state;

Whereas on December 13, 1995, a Beijing court sentenced

Wei Jingsheng to 14 years in prison for peacefully advocating democracy and political reforms in China;

Whereas the Government of the People’s Republic of China

had previously imprisoned Wei Jingsheng from 1979 to
2

•SRES 127 IS

1993, also for peacefully promoting human rights and democracy in China;

Whereas Wei Jingsheng is just one of hundreds, if not thousands, of other political, religious, and labor dissidents

who are imprisoned in China and Tibet for peacefully expressing their beliefs and exercising their internationally

recognized rights of free association and expression;

Whereas like other prisoners, Wei Jingsheng is in poor health

and Chinese authorities refuse to provide him with proper

medical care; and

Whereas the Department of State 1996 Human Rights Report states: ‘‘[t]he Government [of the People’s Republic

of China] continued to commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuses, in violation of internationally accepted norms, stemming from the authorities’ intolerance of dissent, fear of unrest, and the absence or

inadequacy of laws protecting basic freedoms.’’: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the

2 President should not host a state visit by the President

3 of the People’s Republic of China until—

4 (1) the Government of the People’s Republic of

5 China immediately and unconditionally releases Wei

6 Jingsheng, Wang Dan, and a significant number of

7 other prisoners of conscience held in prison in China

8 and Tibet;

9 (2) the Government of the People’s Republic of

10 China takes immediate steps toward improving the

11 conditions under which political, religious, and labor
3

•SRES 127 IS

1 dissidents are imprisoned in China and Tibet, in2 cluding providing prisoners with adequate medical

3 care and allowing international humanitarian agen4 cies access to detention facilities; and

5 (3) the Government of the People’s Republic of

6 China makes significant progress toward improving

7 overall human rights conditions in China and Tibet,

8 including taking concrete steps to grant freedom of

9 speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of associa10 tion in compliance with international human rights

11 standards.

Æ
No. 56820.

#### Cerro DePasco Copper Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 180347-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
```

[111th Congress Public Law 28]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 123 STAT. 1773]]

Public Law 111-28
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   103 West Main Street in McLain, Mississippi, as the ``Major Ed W. 
     Freeman Post Office''. <<NOTE: June 19, 2009 -  [H.R. 1284]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MAJOR ED W. FREEMAN POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 103 West Main Street in McLain, Mississippi, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Major Ed W. Freeman Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Major Ed W. 
Freeman Post Office''.

    Approved June 19, 2009.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1284:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
            Mar. 16, considered and passed House.
            May 21, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>

```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order/U.S. v. Markus Moore/CR05-5823RBL - 1 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 700

TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402

(253) 428-3800

Judge Ronald B. Leighton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) NO. CR05-5823RBL

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

MARKUS VERNON MOORE, )

)

Defendant. ) )

After consideration of defendant Markus Moore’s motion to compel discovery, and the

response filed thereto, and after consideration of all of the evidence presented at any hearing on

the motion,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to compel discovery is DENIED as

Moot. .

DATED this 14th day of September, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ Gregory A. Gruber 

GREGORY A. GRUBER

Assistant United States Attorney

s/ Kent Y. Liu 

KENT Y. LIU

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:05-cr-05823-RJB Document 134 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (Registration No. 333-156493) and the Registration Statements on Form S-3
(Registration Nos. 333-148386, 333-149689 and 333-148390) of our report dated
March 12, 2009 relating to the financial statements and effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting of AgFeed Industries, Inc. (the
“Company”) which appears in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2008, as amended by Amendment No. 1.




/s/ Goldman Parks Kurland Mohidin
      LLPGoldman
      Parks Kurland Mohidin LLPEncino,
      CaliforniaMay
      5, 2009
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

BRADFORD J BAKER,

 Defendant.

Case No. MJ06-5121

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of sufficient ties to the community.

 ( ) Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

Other:

 (/) Defendant waives the detention issue without prejudice and is detained for reasons set forth in government’s motion .

 

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 February 23, 2007.

___s/ Karen L. Strombom______________

Karen L Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-mj-05121-JKA Document 8 Filed 02/23/07 Page 1 of 1