alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENTS
  WHEREAS, Walgreen Co. (the “Company”)
has entered into employment agreements (“Agreements”) with the executives set
forth in Exhibit A for the purpose of assuring the continued dedication of such
executives in the event of a change in control of the Company; and
  WHEREAS,
it is now deemed desirable to amend the Agreements to comply with the
requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended;
  NOW,
THEREFORE, each Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following new Section
13 to the Agreement, immediately following Section 12 thereof:
  “13.           Code Section 409A
Compliance.  Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to
the contrary, the following provisions shall apply effective January 1,
2009:
  (a) 
To the extent required by Code Section 409A, payments under this Agreement shall
be delayed until the date which is six months after the Executive’s separation
from service with the Company.
  (b) 
Any compensation previously deferred by the Executive to be paid under Section
6(d)(i)(D) shall be paid in accordance with the terms of the program and, if
applicable, the elections made by the Executive under such program, under which
such compensation was deferred.
  (c) 
To the extent that any of the continued benefits to be provided to the Executive
under this Agreement constitute taxable reimbursements or in-kind benefits, (i)
the benefits to be provided or expenses eligible for reimbursement shall be
determined in accordance with the applicable Company policy, (ii) the
reimbursement or in-kind benefit shall not affect the expenses eligible for
reimbursement or in-kind benefit to be provided in any other taxable year, (iii)
the reimbursement of an eligible expense must be made on or before the last day
of the taxable year following the year in which the expense was incurred, and
(iv) the Executive may not liquidate or exchange the reimbursement or in kind
benefit for any other benefit.”
    EXHIBIT
A
 LIST OF
AGREEMENTS
 
 
  [Intentionally
omitted]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 95 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9531]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Earned Income Tax Credit Committee of the 
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Amended notice.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Earned Income Tax Credit Committee of 
the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted at the Internal Revenue 
Service, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20006. The Committee 
will be discussing issues pertaining to the IRS administration of the 
Earned Income Tax Credit.

DATES: The meeting will be held Friday, June 1, 2007, 9 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., and Saturday, June 2, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 12 Noon ET.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227 
(toll-free), or 718-488-2085 (non toll-free).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Earned Income Tax Credit Committee of the 
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Friday, June 1, 2007, 9 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m., and Saturday, June 2, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. ET, at 
1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20006. The public is invited 
to make oral comments. Individual comments will be limited to 5 
minutes. For information contact Audrey Y. Jenkins as noted above. 
Notification of intent to participate in the meeting must be made with 
Ms. Jenkins. If you would like a written statement to be considered, 
send written comments to Ms. Audrey Y. Jenkins, TAP Office, 10 
MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201 or post your 
comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include the following: Various issues pertaining to 
the IRS administration of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

    Dated: May 10, 2007.
John Fay,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
 [FR Doc. E7-9531 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Danny L. Pixler,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Certified Services, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Certified Services, Inc.



Date: August
11, 2004



/s/ Danny L. Pixler

| | 
| | 

Danny L. Pixler

President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2013026EN.01002401.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ’s Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2012 — X, other party: Heffingsambtenaar van de gemeente Z

(Case C-486/12)

2013/C 26/45

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Gerechtshof te ’s Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X

Appellant:

Respondent: Heffingsambtenaar van de gemeente Z

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the provision of access (pursuant to Article 79(2) of the Wet GBA [Law on personal data held by local authorities]) constitute compliance with the obligation of communication of the data undergoing processing as referred to in the second indent of Article 12(a) of ... Directive [95/46/EC (1)]? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the provision of access (pursuant to Article 79(2) of the Wet GBA [Law on personal data held by local authorities]) constitute compliance with the obligation of communication of the data undergoing processing as referred to in the second indent of Article 12(a) of ... Directive [95/46/EC (1)]?

1

| 2. | Does Article 12(a) of the Directive preclude the levying of fees in respect of the communication, by means of a transcript from the municipal database, of the personal data undergoing processing? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 12(a) of the Directive preclude the levying of fees in respect of the communication, by means of a transcript from the municipal database, of the personal data undergoing processing?

| 3. | If Question 2 is to be answered in the negative: is the levying of the present fees excessive within the meaning of Article 12(a) of the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is to be answered in the negative: is the levying of the present fees excessive within the meaning of Article 12(a) of the Directive?

---

(1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1639 Referred in House (RFH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1639

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 11, 2011

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend title 36, United States Code, to authorize the American Legion 
  under its Federal charter to provide guidance and leadership to the 
individual departments and posts of the American Legion, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL POWER OF AMERICAN LEGION UNDER FEDERAL CHARTER.

    Section 21704 of title 36, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraph (5) through (8) as 
        paragraphs (6) through (9), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new 
        paragraph (5):
            ``(5) provide guidance and leadership to organizations and 
        local chapters established under paragraph (4), but may not 
        control or otherwise influence the specific activities and 
        conduct of such organizations and local chapters;''.

            Passed the Senate October 6, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
33760.

#### NALLEY v. KARR.

Undercofler, Presiding Justice.

Mellie K. Nalley appeals from the grant of summary judgment to E. E. Karr in an action seeking reformation of a warranty deed on the grounds of mutual mistake.

Nalley’s petition and affidavit show she bought a lot from Karr in 1970 which she agreed to quitclaim to him in 1971 in exchange for another lot which was to contain the same amount of land. Karr measured and staked off this land and Nalley then moved her house trailer upon the lot, with Karr present and directing its placement. A warranty deed was executed and accepted by Nalley. In March, 1976, Nalley had the lot surveyed and found her trailer and other improvements located partially on Karr’s property. Nalley filed suit, alleging in her petition (1) that the deed did not convey the land agreed upon; and (2) the beginning point was inaccurate. Karr answered, denying these allegations, and moved for summary judgment. After considering the pleadings, four deeds and a plat of survey offered by Karr and the plat of survey and an affidavit offered by Nalley in rebuttal to the motion, the trial court found that the beginning point was accurate and found that Nalley "alleges neither fraud nor facts evidencing a mutual mistake [and]... the prior oral agreement of the parties is as a matter of law merged into the deed which was delivered to and accepted by the plaintiff as performance of the agreement.” We reverse.

Under relaxed rules of notice pleading, Nalley’s complaint must be viewed as stating a claim for reformation of the warranty deed based upon mutual mistake. "The doctrine of merger is applicable where there is no evidence of mutual mistake (or actionable fraud) but it should not be used to bar considerations of probative evidence offered to show an alleged mutual mistake in this reformation case.” *Rasmussen v. Martin,*
      *17236 Ga. 267, 269 (223 SE2d 663) (1976).

Submitted June 23, 1978

Decided September 5, 1978.

*Glyndon C. Pruitt,*for appellant.

*Morgan & Sunderland, Thomas Stanley Sunder-land, Handsel G. Morgan, Jr.,*for appellee.

A defendant who is a movant for summary judgment, in order to prevail, must pierce the pleadings of the plaintiff and show to the court that at least one essential element under any theory of recovery is lacking and incapable of proof. *Waldrep v. Goodwin,*230 Ga. 1 (1) (195 SE2d 432) (1973). Karr’s evidence essentially consisted of the deed sought to be reformed and thus he failed in this burden.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
No. 54937.

#### Belfer Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 160176-K (A), etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400' the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            -------------------------
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                                 ---------------
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                             ----------------------
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                  ---------------------------------------------

     In  connection  with the 10-QSB of  American  Utilicraft  Corporation  (the
"Company"), the undersigned officers hereby certify that the Company's quarterly
report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  that ended June 30, 2003 (the  "Report"),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,

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

     b)   that information  contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in
          all  material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
          operations of the issuer

     This certificate is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not
be  deemed  to be a part  of the  Report  or  "filed"  for  any  other  purposes
whatsoever.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this certificate to be signed by
it Chief Financial Officer and its Principal Accounting Officer this 11th day of
November, 2004.


/s/ John J. Dupont                                  /s/ M. Karen Shoemaker
-------------------------------------               ----------------------------
John J. Dupont                                      M. Karen Shoemaker
President and Chief Executive Officer               Principal Accounting Officer
# C_2012235EN.01001002.xml

| 4.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/10

---

Appeal brought on 6 June 2012 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-439/10 and T-440/10 Fulmen and Mahmoudian v Council

(Case C-280/12 P)

2012/C 235/19

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Fulmen, Fereydoun Mahmoudian, European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-439/10 and T-440/10; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-439/10 and T-440/10;

| — | Give a final ruling on the dispute and dismiss the actions brought by Fulmen and Mr Mahmoudian against the measures of the Council at issue; |
| --- | --- |

—

Give a final ruling on the dispute and dismiss the actions brought by Fulmen and Mr Mahmoudian against the measures of the Council at issue;

| — | Order Fulmen and Mr Mahmoudian to pay the costs incurred by the Council at first instance and in connection with the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Fulmen and Mr Mahmoudian to pay the costs incurred by the Council at first instance and in connection with the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Council submits that the judgment of the General Court in the abovementioned cases is marred by errors of law and that that judgment should therefore be set aside by the Court.

The Council maintains that the General Court erred in law in holding that it had to adduce evidence to substantiate its statement of the reasons for the imposition of restrictive measures against the company Fulmen, namely that that company was involved in the installation of electrical equipment on the Qom/Fordoo (Iran) nuclear site.

In that regard, the Council submits, first, that the General Court erred in law in holding that it had to require the Member State which proposed designating Fulmen to present evidence and information although that evidence comes from confidential sources. Secondly, the Council submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that that Court could take account of confidential evidence which is not communicated to the lawyers of the parties concerned, although Article 67(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court does not provide for that possibility.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-61,396] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 30, 2007, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Rayolite, Division of Pac-Tec Incorporated, Newark, Ohio. 

The petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid. The petitioner was not a company official but one of the dislocated workers. A petition filed by workers must be filed by three (3) individuals. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of May 2007. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E7-9111 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 report on Form 10-Q/A of Advanced Technologies Group,
Ltd. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), the
undersigned, Alex Stelmak, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

Date: January 26, 2010

                                         /s/ Alex Stelmak
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Alex Stelmak
                                         Chief Executive Officer,
                                         Chairman of the Board and
                                         Chief Financial Officer
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1629 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify presumptions relating 

to the exposure of certain veterans who served in the vicinity of the 

Republic of Vietnam, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify presumptions relating to the exposure of certain veterans who 

served in the vicinity of the Republic of Vietnam, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Agent Orange Equity 

5 Act of 2011’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1629 IS

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF PRESUMPTIONS OF EXPOSURE 

2 FOR VETERANS WHO SERVED IN VICINITY OF 

3 REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM. 

4 (a) COMPENSATION.—Subsections (a)(1) and (f) of 

5 section 1116 of title 38, United States Code, are amended 

6 by inserting ‘‘(including the territorial seas of such Repub7 lic)’’ after ‘‘served in the Republic of Vietnam’’ each place 

8 it appears. 

9 (b) HEALTH CARE.—Section 1710(e)(4) of such title 

10 is amended by inserting ‘‘(including the territorial seas of 

11 such Republic)’’ after ‘‘served on active duty in the Repub12 lic of Vietnam’’. 

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 subsections (a) and (b) shall take effect as of September 

15 25, 1985. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 44273.

#### Protest 973136-G of Henry Pollak, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The record shows that the Panama hat bodies in question were exempt from marking by an order in T. D. 44992, paragraph 11. There was a cotton band securely fastened around each bundle of hats which was marked in legible English words, and the cases or burlap coverings were marked with the country of origin. On the authority of Abstract 34552 the protest was sustained.