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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.16

                              UNILAB CORPORATION




                                        November 23, 1999


Kelso & Company, Inc.
320 Park Avenue, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10022

Ladies and Gentlemen:

                Unilab Corporation ("the Company"), hereby agrees to retain you,
Kelso & Company, Inc. ("Kelso"), to provide financial advisory and other
services to the Company. In consideration of providing such services, the
Company will pay Kelso (i) a fee of $6,000,000 in cash, which amount shall be
paid substantially concurrently with the consummation of the merger of UC
Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub") with and into the Company (the "Merger")
and (ii) an annual fee of $600,000, which shall be payable, with respect to the
remainder of 1999, on the date hereof on a pro rata basis and thereafter shall
be payable in full on January 1 of each calendar year. The Company shall also
reimburse Kelso promptly for Kelso's out-of-pocket costs and expenses incurred
in connection with the Merger and the other transactions contemplated by the
Agreement and Plan of Merger between the Company and Merger Sub dated May 24,
1999 as amended (the "Merger Agreement") and the performance of services by
Kelso hereunder.

                The Company agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Kelso and each
of its partners, directors, officers, employees, representatives, agents,
affiliates and controlling persons (collectively, the "Indemnified Persons")
from and against any and all losses, claims, damages, liabilities or expenses
(including, without limitation, any legal or other expenses reasonably incurred
by any Indemnified Person in connection with defending or investigating any such
action or claim) to which any Indemnified Person may become subject under any
applicable federal or state law, or otherwise, related to or arising out of the
performance of services for the Company or its successor or successors, or
related to or arising out of the Merger or any of the other transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement (including the financing of the Merger)
except to the extent that any such loss, claim, damage, liability or
<PAGE>

Kelso & Company, Inc.
November 23, 1999
Page 2

expense is held in a final non-appealable judgment by a court of competent
jurisdiction to have primarily resulted from such Indemnified Person's bad
faith, willful misconduct or gross negligence.



                This Letter Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State
of New York.

                If the foregoing correctly sets forth our agreement, please so
indicate by signing a counterpart of this letter whereupon it shall become a
binding agreement between us.


                        Very truly yours,


                        UNILAB CORPORATION


                        By: /s/ illegible
                            ---------------------------

Accepted and agreed
as of the date first
above written

KELSO & COMPANY, L.P.

By: Kelso & Companies
      General Partner

By: /s/ illegible
    ------------------------

                                       2
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 133075 & (19) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133075 COA: 271089 Kent CC: 79-024080-FY RICHARD GARRNIT DYKHOUSE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 20, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion to remand to the trial court is DENIED.

p0618 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 26, 2007

Clerk
# C_2007183EN.01000502.xml

| 4.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-342/05) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Wild fauna and flora - Wolf hunting)

(2007/C 183/08)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and I. Koskinen, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: E. Bygglin, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 12(1) and 16(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Hunting of wolves

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by authorising wolf hunting on a preventive basis, without it being established that the hunting is such as to prevent serious damage within the meaning of Article 16(1)(b) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12(1) and 16(1)(b) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by authorising wolf hunting on a preventive basis, without it being established that the hunting is such as to prevent serious damage within the meaning of Article 16(1)(b) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12(1) and 16(1)(b) of that directive;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.

1

---
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 Sub-Urban Brands, Inc. on Form 10-QSB
      for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Joseph Shortal,
      Chief Executive Officer of Sub-Urban Brands, Inc., does hereby 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; and





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




Dated:
                August 20, 2007/s/
                Stephen RuszakStephen
                Ruszak, Chief Financial Officer
Case: 2:11-cv-00409-EAS-TPK Doc #: 21 Filed: 04/13/12 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-12T15:47:25-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
No. 56068.

protest 165526-K (New York).

#### Tuck High & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 47490.

#### Protest 16863-K of Ciba Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel 34 percent of Ultravon WC pat., and 51 percent of Sapamine FLC pat., were held taxable at 3 cents per pound under section 701, Revenue Act of 1936, as claimed.
Before the Third Division,

June 2, 1955

No. 59124.

protest 209411-K (B) (New York).

#### Ira Furman Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are similar to those involved in Abstract 57104, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 20, 2011

Decided October 21, 2011

Before

JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

No. 11‐1213

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

JOSE MARTINEZ‐SANTANA

a/k/a Jose Rodriguez,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 10 CR 00122

Samuel Der‐Yeghiayan,

Judge.

O R D E R

Jose Martinez‐Santana, a citizen of Mexico, was convicted in 1998 of robbery and

sexual battery and removed to his home country. In 2004 he was found by a federal agent in

California and was removed again. He returned a third time and was discovered by federal

officers in Chicago in 2010. He pleaded guilty to unauthorized presence in the United States

after removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Based on a total offense level of 21 and a criminal‐

history category of IV, the district court calculated a guidelines imprisonment range of 57 to

71 months and sentenced Martinez‐Santana to the low end of that range.

Martinez‐Santana filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed attorney has moved to

withdraw on the ground that all potential appellate claims are frivolous. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Martinez‐Santana has not responded to his lawyer’s

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 11‐1213 Page 2

submission. See CIR. R. 51(b). He did inform counsel, however, that he does not want his

guilty plea set aside, so counsel properly forgoes discussion of the voluntariness of the plea

or the district court’s compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. See United

States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002). We limit our review to the potential issue

identified in counsel’s facially adequate brief. See United States v. Aslan, 644 F.3d 526, 531

(7th Cir. 2011).

Counsel discusses only one potential issue: whether Martinez‐Santana could

challenge his prison sentence as unreasonably high. A sentence within the guidelines range

is presumptively reasonable, Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v.

Williams, 436 F.3d 767, 768 (7th Cir. 2006). Counsel has not identified any ground to rebut

this presumption, nor can we. The district court discussed how the factors in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) apply to Martinez‐Santana. The court addressed factors offered in mitigation,

including his alcoholism, his participation in Alcoholics Anonymous, and the potential for

disparity caused by the lack of a fast‐track program in the Northern District of Illinois. But

the court concluded that a sentence within the guidelines range was necessary in light of

Martinez‐Santana’s criminal history and the need to deter those who repeatedly break the

law. Because the court adequately explained its sentencing decision, we agree with counsel

that a reasonableness challenge would be frivolous.

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Employers--looking for tax forms?

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Employers--looking for tax forms? 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. Internal Revenue Service 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1980-1990 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United States 
                    -           Series Title        
                    -  Publication ; 1354 (10-87)Publication (United States. Internal Revenue Service)1354. 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  136 × 28 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ricoh Aficio 3228 Scanner at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu. 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  018524399.jpg 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
No. 50156.

#### Protests 92249-K, etc., of Chan Kee Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of the decisions cited, which records were incorporated herein, the protests were sustained as follows: (1) Merchandise the same as the commodity passed upon in *Quong Yuen Shing Co.*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A, D. 247) was held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 as a nonenumerated manufactured article; (2) certain items the same as those the subject of *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372), amended by Abstract 44821, were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 as crude drugs; and (3) other items similar to *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States, supra,*were held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 34 as drugs, advanced in value.
August 3, 2015

Mr. Rolando Chavez

716 Amber Avenue

Laredo, TX 78045

Dear Mr. Chavez:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§§ 61.113(a) and (b); 91.119(c); 91.15l(a); 91.405(a), 407(a)(1), 409(a)(2), 417(a) and (b) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your March 27, 2015, exemption request into the public docket 

(No. FAA−2015−2031), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
Exhibit 31.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Standard Financial Corp.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 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
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined 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 disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation;c)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial 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 has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting;
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 December 23, 2010
    /s/ Colleen M. BrownDate
    Colleen M. BrownSenior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.21


                  SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE GEEG HOLDINGS, L.L.C.
                                2000 OPTION PLAN
                                ----------------

                  This Second Amendment to the GEEG Holdings, L.L.C. 2000 Option
Plan (the "Option Plan") of GEEG Holdings, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability
company (the "Company"), has been deemed advisable and has been adopted pursuant
to the terms of Section 6.7 of the Option Plan by the Company's Board of
Directors and is effective on April __, 2001. Terms used herein but not
otherwise defined shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Option
Plan.

1.       Section 5.2(a) of the Option Plan is amended by deleting the second
sentence thereof and substituting the following in lieu thereof:

                  "Such exercise price shall be paid to the Company: (i) in cash
                  (including check, bank draft, money order or wire transfer of
                  immediately available funds); (ii) if permitted by applicable
                  law and approved by the Board, by delivery of Common Units,
                  previously acquired and currently owned by the Participant (or
                  by the Participant and his or her spouse jointly) and
                  purchased or held for the requisite period of time as
                  necessary to avoid a charge to the Company's earnings for
                  financial reporting purposes, having an aggregate Fair Market
                  Value on the date of exercise of the Option equal to such
                  exercise price; (iii) if the Common Units are traded on a
                  national securities exchange, the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. or
                  quoted on a national quotation system by the National
                  Association of Securities Dealers, and, in any case, if
                  permitted by applicable law, through a "cashless exercise"
                  procedure approved by the Board whereby the Participant may
                  deliver irrevocable instructions to a broker to deliver
                  promptly to the Company cash in an amount equal to such
                  exercise price and any taxes required as a result of such
                  exercise; or (iv) by a combination of the consideration
                  provided for in the foregoing clauses (i) through (iii)."


2.       Section 5.9 of the Option Plan is amended by adding a new sentence at
the end of such section to read as follows:

                  "The Board may, in its discretion, waive any of the foregoing
restrictions in this Section 5.9."


3.       In all other respects, the Option Plan is ratified and shall, as so
changed by this Second Amendment, continue in full force and effect.