alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.46

Capital Lease Funding, Inc.
Executive Officer Compensation
Revised Base Salaries and 2005 Cash Bonuses

|                     |  |                       |  |                   |          | 
|-------------------- |  | --------------------- |  | ----------------- | -------- | 
|                     |  | Revised
  Base Salary |  | 2005 Cash
  Bonus
|                     |  |                       |  |                   |          | 
|Paul H.
  McDowell   |  | $375,000              |  |                   | $249,500 | 
|                     |  |                       |  |                   |          | 
|William R.
  Pollert |  | No change             |  |                   | 150,000  | 
|                     |  |                       |  |                   |          | 
|Shawn P.
  Seale     |  | 300,000               |  |                   | 214,500  | 
|                     |  |                       |  |                   |          | 
|Robert C.
  Blanz    |  | 245,000               |  |                   | 218,000  | 
|                     |  |                       |  |                   |          | 
|Paul C.
  Hughes     |  | 200,000               |  |                   | 80,000   | 

---
**EXHIBIT 12.2**

 

**RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Kin Shek Leung, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Global-Tech Appliances Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this Annual Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary 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; and 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in allmaterial 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 Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company 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 Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness 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 Annual Report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’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 reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: September 30, 2004
No. 49530.

#### Protests 106200-K, etc., of Brunswig Drug Co. et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Christopher Campea et al., Respondents, v Nirmala Mitra et al., Defendants, and Madelyn Olson et al., Appellants.

[699 NYS2d 298]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants Madelyn Olson and North Shore University Hospital appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), dated March 13, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action based upon lack of informed consent insofar as asserted against the appellants and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the motion of the defendants Madelyn Olson and North Shore *191University Hospital which was for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ medical malpractice claims insofar as asserted against them. After those defendants made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the affidavit of the plaintiffs’ expert, submitted in opposition, was sufficiently specific and supported by facts in the record to create triable issues of fact (see, *Baez v Lockridge,*259 AD2d 753; *Taylor v St. Vincent’s Med. Ctr.,*236 AD2d 461; *cf., Kaplan v Hamilton Med. Assocs.,*262 AD2d 609).

The Supreme Court erred, however, in failing to dismiss the lack of informed consent claim asserted against the appellants. Such a claim requires a plaintiff to plead and prove that his injuries are due, at least in part, “to his having undergone ‘some affirmative violation of his physical integrity’ in the absence of informed consent” *(Schel v Roth,*242 AD2d 697, 698, quoting *Karlsons v Guerinot, 57*AD2d 73, 82). Here, the plaintiffs’ claim that the appellant doctor failed to recommend surgery at a time when more beneficial results could have been obtained fails to state a cause of action based on lack of informed consent *(see, Schel v Roth, supra).*O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certifications





The undersigned officers certify that this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Eastern Environment Solutions, Corp.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Eastern Environment Solutions, Corp. and will be retained by Eastern Environment Solutions, Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





August 16, 2010
/s/ Feng YanFeng Yan (Chief Executive Officer)August 16, 2010
/s/ Jianhua SunJianhua Sun (Chief Financial Officer)
No. 92-8432.

#### Allman *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

ROBERT J. SOVIS,

Claimant

- Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2015

- 7078

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 14

- 258, Chief Judge Bruce E. Kasold.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

K

ATHERINE A. H ELM , Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, New York, NY, argued for claimant

- appellant. Also represented by F RANCIS J OHN A COTT

.

S HARI A. R OSE , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Just ice, Washin gton, DC, argued for respondent

- appellee. Also represented by A LLISON K IDD -M ILLER , R OBERT E. K IRSCHMAN , J R ., B ENJAMIN C. M IZER ; Y. K EN L EE , M ARTIN J AMES S ENDEK ,Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN , S CHALL , and C HEN , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

April 21, 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**
     We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statements on Form S-8Nos. 333-112281, 333-30976, 333-56615 and 333-56675;Form S-4 Nos. 333-111479, 333-47101 and 333-70537; andForm S-3 No. 333-84461, of Jacuzzi Brands, Inc. of ourreport dated November 30, 2004 with respect to theconsolidated financial statements and schedule of JacuzziBrands, Inc. included in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004, filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission.
 /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP     Certified Public Accountants    
West Palm Beach, FloridaDecember 3, 2004
#### David Ashley, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6552.

Entry No. 721470, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, January 1, 1943, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 11, 1943, etc.

(Decided November 25, 1946)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *A;*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised ■Values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF ELECTRONICS BOUTIQUE HOLDINGS CORP.

|1.  |  | EB Investment Corpa Delaware corporation                         
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|2.  |  | Electronics Boutique of America Inc.a Pennsylvania corporation   
|3.  |  | Electronics Boutique Canada Inc.a Canadian corporation           
|4.  |  | EB Catalog Companya Nevada corporation                           
|5.  |  | EB Games Online, Inc.a Nevada corporation                        
|6.  |  | Elbo, Inc.a Delaware corporation                                 
|7.  |  | EB Finance, Inc.a Delaware corporation                           
|8.  |  | EB International Holdings, Inc.a Delaware corporation            
|9.  |  | Electronics Boutique Australia Pty. Ltdan Australian company     
|10. |  | Electronics Boutique Korea Inc.a Korean Corporation              
|11. |  | Electronics Boutique Denmark Holdings ApSa Danish private company
|12. |  | Electronics Boutique Denmark ApSa Danish private company         
|13. |  | Electronics Boutique Norway ASa Norwegian private company        
|14. |  | EB Italy srl, an Italian company                                  
|15. |  | Tradition Svenska AB, a Swedish company                           
|16. |  | Electronics Boutique AG, a German company                         

---

QuickLinks
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 Quarterly Report of Huifeng Bio-Pharmaceutical Technology,
      Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of, I, Jing’an Wang, Chief
      Executive 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 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:
      August 14, 2008




/S/
                Jing’an WangJing’an
                Wang
              Chief
                Executive Officer
No. 95-9033.

#### Johnson *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[111th Congress Public Law 106]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 123 STAT. 3018]]

Public Law 111-106
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
867 Stockton Street in San Francisco, California, as the ``Lim Poon Lee 
         Post Office''. <<NOTE: Nov. 30, 2009 -  [H.R. 3119]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LIM POON LEE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 867 Stockton Street in San Francisco, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Lim Poon Lee 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 ``Lim Poon 
Lee Post Office''.

    Approved November 30, 2009.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3119:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
            July 21, 22, considered and passed House.
            Nov. 9, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Before the First Division,

April 2, 1942

No. 47023.

#### Protest 935820-G of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on-the authority of Abstract 40185 the metal horns in question were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 397 as claimed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         230,248
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  132,334
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     51,034
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               467,587
<PP&E>                                       2,752,037
<DEPRECIATION>                                (90,252)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,242,872
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          130,278
<BONDS>                                      2,268,137
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           676
<OTHER-SE>                                     770,794
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,242,872
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               684,684
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  430,719
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               118,772
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             105,138
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,055
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,384
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,671
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,671
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30


</TABLE>
```

[115th Congress Public Law 208]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Public Law 115-208
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 514 Broadway Street in Pekin, Illinois, as the ``Lance Corporal Jordan 
    S. Bastean Post Office''. <<NOTE: July 24, 2018 -  [H.R. 2673]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL JORDAN S. BASTEAN POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 514 Broadway Street in Pekin, Illinois, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Lance Corporal Jordan S. Bastean 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 ``Lance 
Corporal Jordan S. Bastean Post Office''.

    Approved July 24, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2673:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Mar. 5, considered and passed House.
            June 28, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
# C_2015107EN.01000901.xml

| 30.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Agrooikosystimata EPE v Ipourgos Oikonomias kai Oikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon, Periferia Thessalias (Perifereaki Enotita Magnisias)

(Case C-498/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 - Agricultural production methods meeting the requirements of environmental protection and upkeep of the countryside - Long-term set-aside of agricultural land for purposes connected with the environment - Agri-environmental aid paid to farmers and cofinanced by the European Union - Status as recipient of such aid))

(2015/C 107/11)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agrooikosystimata EPE

Defendants: Ipourgos Oikonomias kai Oikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon, Periferia Thessalias (Perifereaki Enotita Magnisias)

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside must be interpreted as meaning that only persons who have previously produced agricultural products could benefit under the long-term set aside scheme for agricultural land provided for in Article 2(1)(f) thereof.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

---
# C_2016048EN.01005101.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/51

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 7 December 2015 — POA v Commission

(Case T-584/15 R)

((Application for interim measures - Publication of an application for registration of a protected designation of origin - ‘Halloumi’ or ‘Hellim’ - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))

(2016/C 048/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pagkiprios organismos ageladotrofon Dimosia Ltd (POA) (Latsia, Cyprus) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and J. Guillem Carrau, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of the measure adopted by the Commission dated 28 July 2015 entitled ‘Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs’ (OJ 2015 C 246, p. 9).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
No. 44284.

#### Protests 623860-G, etc., of Millinery Clearing House, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL STONE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 120 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL STONE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 121 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of March, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Charles Lindy ALLISON, Jr., Respondent, v. Cindy Kay ALLISON, Appellant.

No. 73350.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Sept. 29, 1998.

Ramon J. Morganstern, Clayton, for appellant.

M. Deborah Benoit, Clayton, for respondent.

Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., C.J., and KAROHL, J., and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Wife appeals from the trial court’s award of primary physical custody to Husband. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Reportof Smith Barney AAA Energy Fund L.P. (the"Partnership") on Form 10-K for the periodending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, David J. Vogel, President and Director of Citigroup Managed FuturesLLC, 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 ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Partnership

/s/ David J.Vogel                                                        DavidJ. Vogel Citigroup Managed Futures LLC President andDirector

March 15,2005                                                             Date

----