alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1
 
                         ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC.
          PROXY FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS             , 1998
 
     The undersigned hereby appoints Roger A. Ramsey and Thomas H. Van Weelden
as Proxies, each with the power to appoint his substitute, and hereby authorizes
them to represent and vote, as designated on the reverse side of this proxy
card, all shares of Common Stock of Allied Waste Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") held of record by the undersigned on             , 1998, at the
Special Meeting of Stockholders to be held on             , 1998, or any
adjournment thereof.
 
                (CONTINUED AND TO BE SIGNED ON THE REVERSE SIDE)
 
                        PLEASE DATE, SIGN AND MAIL YOUR
                      PROXY CARD BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!
 
                        SPECIAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
                         ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC.
 
                                           , 1998
 
               -Please Detach and Mail in the Envelope Provided -
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
<TABLE>
<S>  <C>
[X]  PLEASE MARK YOUR
     VOTES AS IN THIS
     EXAMPLE
</TABLE>
 
     To vote in accordance with the recommendations of the Board of Directors
just sign below, no boxes need be checked.
 
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR
PROPOSALS 1 AND 2
 
1.  Proposal to approve and adopt the Agreement and Plan of Merger among the
    Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and American Disposal
    Services, Inc. and to approve the issuance of shares of Common Stock of the
    Company pursuant to this agreement.
           [ ] FOR               [ ] AGAINST              [ ] ABSTAIN
 
2.  Proposal to amend the Amended Certificate of Incorporation of the Company to
    increase the number of authorized shares of Common Stock of the Company from
    200,000,000 to 300,000,000.
           [ ] FOR               [ ] AGAINST              [ ] ABSTAIN
 
THIS PROXY IS SOLICITED ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY. THIS
PROXY WILL BE VOTED AS DIRECTED. IN THE ABSENCE OF DIRECTION, THIS PROXY WILL BE
VOTED FOR PROPOSALS 1 AND 2.
 
STOCKHOLDERS ARE URGED TO DATE, MARK, SIGN AND RETURN THIS PROXY PROMPTLY IN THE
ENVELOPE PROVIDED, WHICH REQUIRED NO POSTAGE IF MAILED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.
 
<TABLE>
<S>                                                         <C>
SIGNATURE(S)                                                DATE
 
--------------------------------------------------------    ------------------------------------
</TABLE>
 
NOTE: Please sign exactly as name or names hereon.  Joint owners should each
      sign. When signing as attorney, executor, administrator, trustee or
      guardian, please give full title as such.
Before the First Division,

July 26, 1949

No. 53422.

protest 146874-K(B) (New York).

#### Mondego Import & Export Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
Exhibit 31.1
                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, Paritosh K. Choksi, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this annual  report on Form 10-K of ATEL Cash  Distribution
Fund IX, LLC;

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 have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
     information relating to the registrant 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 December 31, 2003 (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
functions):

     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 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:          6/1/2004

/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi
--------------------------
Paritosh K. Choksi
Principal financial officer of registrant, Executive
Vice President of Managing Member
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**  I, William M. Lutz, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Salton, Inc.: 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation;  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: May 15, 2007         By:                                      /s/ William M. Lutz    William M. Lutz    Chief Financial Officer
No. 63507.

protests 330261-K, etc. (New York).

#### Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 66220.

#### Seedman International Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 61/3220 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
##### 



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 Virage Logic Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James
R. Pekarsky, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ James R. Pekarsky

James R. Pekarsky
Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2003
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0001176 12-NOV-2015 08:35 AM
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 212 (Friday, November 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 75635]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24303]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 05/05-0301]

Monroe Capital Partners Fund LP; Surrender of License of Small 
Business Investment Company

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 
1958, as amended, under section 309 of the Act and section 107.1900 of 
the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 
107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the 
Small Business Investment Company License No. 05/05-0301 issued to 
Monroe Capital Partners Fund LP, said license is hereby declared null 
and void.

Bailey Devries,
Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, United 
States Small Business Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-24303 Filed 11-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
Document

Exhibit 10.29

Amendment # 2 to
UPLAND SOFTWARE, INC.


EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


    This Amendment #2 to the Executive Employment Agreement by and between Upland Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Michael D. Hill (“Executive”) dated March 28, 2017 and amended March 13, 2019 (“Original Agreement”), is entered into as of November 12, 2020.


RECITALS


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend Paragraph 3(b) of the Original Agreement as of the Effective Date.
AMENDMENT


Paragraph 3(b) is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:


    “3(b) Target Bonus. During the Employment Term, Executive will be eligible to receive an annual bonus targeted at 125% of Executive’s Base Salary, less applicable withholdings, upon achievement of performance objectives to be determined by the Board in its sole discretion, 50% of which shall be based upon achievement of Adjusted EBITDA targets and 50% of which shall be based upon the achievement of acquisitions targets (the “Target Bonus”).  Any Bonus will be earned only if the Company achieves the annual performance objectives during the designated time period and Executive is continuously employed by the Company on the date that such performance objectives are achieved.  The actual amount of the Bonus may be less than or greater than the Target Bonus based on the level at which the Company achieves the annual performance objectives during the designated time period.  The Company shall pay such Bonus at the same time as bonuses are normally paid to senior management, unless the Board approves an exception for payment of a particular bonus on a case by case basis, but in any event, any earned Bonus shall be paid no later than two months and 15 days after the end of the Company’s taxable year in which such Bonus was earned.”


Except as specified in this Amendment #2, all terms and conditions of the Original Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and otherwise remain unchanged.


    









Exhibit 10.29

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has executed this Amendment # 2 to the Agreement, in the case of the Company by their duly authorized officers, as of the day and year first above written.


                            “COMPANY”
                            Upland Software, Inc.




                            By:  /s/ Kin Gill            
                            Name: Kin Gill
                            Title:  SVP, General Counsel and Secretary
    Address:    401 Congress Ave., Ste. 1850
        Austin, TX 78701


    “EXECUTIVE”


    /s/ Michael D. Hill        
    Michael D. Hill
    Address:    401 Congress Ave., Ste. 1850
        Austin, TX 78701
Document

Exhibit 10.11.4

AMENDMENT FOUR
TO
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY SUPPLEMENTAL CASH BALANCE PLAN


The Coca-Cola Company Supplemental Cash Balance Plan is amended as follows, effective as provided herein:


1.Effective December 9, 2020, the definition of “Separation from Service” is amended as follows:
“Separation from Service” shall mean that employment with an Employer terminates such that it is reasonably anticipated that no further services will be performed for the Employer or any member of the Company’s Controlled Group, as defined by Section 414 of the Code. Separation from Service shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with Section 409A of the Code and the regulations thereunder.


    
                THE COCA-COLA COMPANY BENEFITS COMMITTEE




            
                                                
                By: Silvina Kippke


                Date:    December 9, 2020
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
   
     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-79178, 33-80936, 333-1808, 333-59189, and 333-59191) on Form S-8 and
registration statements (Nos. 33-90384, 333-16287, 33-70962, 33-44746,
333-27397, 333-59187 and 333-42369) on Form S-3 of Integrated Process Equipment
Corp. of our report dated August 4, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of Integrated Process Equipment Corp. and subsidiaries as of June 30,
1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended June 30, 1998, which report appears in the June 30, 1998 Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A-1 of Integrated Process Equipment Corp.
    
 
   
                                          /s/ KPMG LLP
    
 
   
Phoenix, Arizona
March 4, 1999
Before the Third Division,

March 12, 1953

No. 57147.

protest 190401—K (New York).

#### C. F. Eccardt *&*Co. *v.*United States,

Ekwall, Judge:

This case involves an importation of 103 cases of champagne imported into the port of New York from France. Regular customs duty was assessed thereon at the rate of $2 per gallon under the provisions of paragraph 803 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 803), as amended by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 51802). The rate of duty applicable to' champagne is by statute made dependent upon the value per gallon; if valued at not more than $6 per gallon, the rate is fixed at $2 per gallon;.if valued at over $6 per gallon, at $1.50 per gallon. The instant merchandise was found by the appraiser to be valued at less than $6 per gallon. No appeal from that finding of value was taken.

The importer, who appeared on his own behalf, claims that the proper value is the entered value, which is in excess of $6 per gallon, and that, therefore, the $1.50 rate applies.

The collector of customs in his memorandum of transmittal states as follows:

> A review of the facts reveal that the Appraiser accepted the entered and appraised unit of value per case of $14.65, but that the bottle charged per case of 60$ was included in such unit value, thereby making the value of the champagne less than $6.00 per gallon.

It appears that in determining the value of the champagne *per se*the appraiser followed the ruling of this court in the case of *Maynard & Child, Inc.*v. *United States,*24 Cust. Ct. 215, C. D. 1235, wherein we held that sparkling wine imported in bottles was properly dutiable upon the basis of the value of the wine *per se*exclusive of the cost of the bottles. In any event, there having been no appeal from the appraised value, such value must stand. (Section 503, Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U. S. C. § 1503.)

At the hearing, counsel for the Government moved to dismiss the protest insofar as it seeks any alteration in the entered and appraised value which has become final under the statute. As the record discloses that the question is one of value and that no claim has been made as to the validity of the appraisement upon which liquidation was based, the motion to dismiss is granted.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350),
Jeffrey Staszak, Chief Executive Officer of Volterra Semiconductor Corporation
(the "Company") hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2004, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "Periodic
Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
of the Exchange Act; and

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 28th day
of October, 2004.

                                          /s/ Jeffrey Staszak
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Jeffrey Staszak
                                          Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
by reference into any filing of Volterra Semiconductor Corporation under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective
of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-31158 Summary Calendar

LARRY WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus WARDEN, WINN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CV-1611

-------------------- July 29, 2002 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Larry Williams, Louisiana prisoner # 86172, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the denial of his “motion for default judgment,” filed after the district court conditionally granted his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and after the state court resentenced him. To the extent that Williams argues that the State failed to comply with the district court’s judgment by returning him to the Tenth instead of the Eleventh Judicial District Court of Louisiana for resentencing, COA isNo. 01-31158 -2- DENIED. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). To the extent that Williams’ postjudgment motion sought review of the newly imposed state court sentence on the merits, the motion was unauthorized and should have been denied for lack of jurisdiction. See United States v. Early , 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994). Under this second argument, because Williams has “appealed from the denial of a meaningless, unauthorized motion” ( id. at 142), COA is not necessary. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). Under this ground, the appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. Rule. 42.2. COA DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.