alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1.25



TERRA INDUSTRIES INC.

DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATORY
ARRANGEMENTS FOR 2005

APPLICABLE TO NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS



Set forth below are compensatory arrangements as of March 1, 2005, applicable to Terras current executive officers who will be named in the
summary compensation table of Terras proxy statement for the 2005 annual meeting of shareholders (Named Executive Officers). These arrangements are in addition to the various other compensatory plans and arrangements in which
Terras Named Executive Officers participate and which are filed as exhibits to this report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.



Annual Base Pay



|                                                        |  |   |        
|------------------------------------------------------- |  | - | -------
|Michael L. Bennett                                      |  | $ | 450,000
|President and Chief Executive Officer                   |  |   |        
|                                                        | 
|Francis G. Meyer                                        |  | $ | 325,000
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer       |  |   |        
|                                                        | 
|W. Mark Rosenbury                                       |  | $ | 250,000
|Senior Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer  |  |   |        
|                                                        | 
|Mark A. Kalafut                                         |  | $ | 210,000
|Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary |  |   |        
|                                                        | 
|Richard S. Sanders Jr.                                  |  | $ | 185,000
|Vice President, Manufacturing                           |  |   |        



Executive Retention Agreements



Each of the Named Executive Officers has entered into an executive retention
agreement, the details of which are set out in Terras proxy statement under the caption Employee Contracts, Termination of Employment and Change of Control Arrangements.



Bonuses



Each of the Named Executive Officers received a bonus for 2004, payable in 2005, the details of which are set out in Terras proxy statement in the Summary Compensation Table.
No. 47105.

#### Protest 955280-G of Atlas Marine Supply Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise in question consists of cylindrical and tubular tanks or vessels and that they are the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Atlas Marine Supply Co.*v. *United States*(29 C. C. P. A. 20, C. A. D. 165). In accordance therewith the drums in question were held entitled to free entry under section 309 (a), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 5 (a), Customs Administrative Act of 1938, as claimed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                         646,261
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   98,248
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,343
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               750,479
<PP&E>                                         711,159
<DEPRECIATION>                                  94,820
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,102,395
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          110,413
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           62,148
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       124,398
<OTHER-SE>                                    (805,436)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,102,395
<SALES>                                        513,473
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,351,982
<CGS>                                          261,950
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  261,950
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                162,903
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            162,903
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   162,903
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Joseph Sciacca, Chief Financial Officer of Halifax Corporation, certifythat:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Halifax Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
b) (Intentionally omitted);
c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s forth fiscal quarter in the case of anyannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting        Date: June 14, 2004 /s/ Joseph Sciacca   Joseph Sciacca   Chief Financial Officer
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 Big Sky Industries III, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 results of operations of the Company.



Dated: January 22, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, President

Big Sky Industries III, Inc.
#### Jack R. COURSHON, as Nominee of the Trustees of First Mortgage Investors v. TIL, d/b/a Spanish Villa Apartments of Monroe, et al.

No. 59944.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 15, 1977.

In re: Jesse H. Heard Constr. Inc., et al., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, 344 So.2d 719, Second Circuit, Parish of Ouachita.

Writ denied. We cannot say that the court of appeal’s interpretation of the statute is in error. The matter may address itself to the legislature.

DIXON, J.,

dissents from the denial, being of the opinion that the interpretation of R.S. 9:4801(C) by the court of appeal is erroneous, and should be corrected either by this court or by the legislature.

CALOGERO, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ to afford a full consideration of the issues of law presented.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHRISTOPHER A LATORRE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 51 EM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of October , 2020, the Application for Permission to File

a Petition for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED

.
#### William A. Bearce *versus*Stillman F. Washburn and al.

Where one person advances funds, and another furnishes his personal services and skill, in carrying on a trade or operation, and is to share in the profits: it amounts to a partnership.

Reported by Appleton, *J.,*presiding at *Nisi Prius,*from which it appears that this action was brought against the defendants as co-partners in a lumbering operation, and that the goods sued for were used in that operation for the benefit of both defendants, who shared equally in the profits, one having furnished funds and the other performed the necessary labor.

The only question raised was whether the defendants were co-partners.

The full court were authorized to render such judgment as the law of the case might require.

*H. P. Haynes,*counsel for the plaintiff,

argued that the defendants were special partners for that operation, without articles of co-partnership in writing, and cited Story on Partnerships, 3d ed., pp. 59, 60, 61, 94, 96, 97.

*A. C. Smith, per se,*

denied that he was a partner, or liable for any further amount than the specific sum which he agreed to advance.

Rice, J.

Assumpsit against the defendants, as partners, for goods sold and delivered. Smith, one of the defendants, contests his liability as a partner, on the ground that there was no legal partnership existing between the defendants ; or if the court should hold otherwise, that the goods sued *565for were not sold and delivered to, and on the credit of, the partnership. Washburn, the other defendant, does not contend.

Partnership, often called co-partnership, is usually defined to be a voluntary contract between two or more competent persons, to place their money, effects, labor, and skill, or some or all of them, in lawful commerce or business, with the understanding that there shall be a community of the profits thereof between them. Story on Partnerships, sec. 2.

If one person advances funds and another furnishes his personal services or skill in carrying on a trade, and is to share in the profits, it amounts to a partnership. 3 Kent’s Com., p. 24; Dob v. Holsey, 16 Johns., 34.

The facts reported in this case, so far as the lumbering operation, in which they were engaged, is concerned, bring the defendants clearly within the definition of co-partners, both between themselves and in their relations with others. The evidence also shows that the goods sued for went to the use of the partnership, and were purchased with the knowledge and assent of both of the defendants. The papers referred to in the report have not come into the hands of the court.

*Defendant defaulted.*
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20802]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-138-005]


Shell Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

August 1, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 30, 1997, Shell Gas Pipeline Company 
(SGPC) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original 
Volume No. 1, Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 137 in compliance 
with the Commission's Order No. 587-C to become effective November 1, 
1997.
    SGPC states the purpose of the filing is to comply with the letter 
order issued on July 18, 1997, in Docket No. RP97-138-004, whereby SGPC 
was directed to file actual tariff Sheet No. 137 within 15 days from 
the date of the letter order.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington D.C. 20426, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20802 Filed 8-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 99-1288.

#### Owens *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

# DLA Disposition Services observes Pride Month

By Jason ShambergerDLA Disposition Services

                BATTLE CREEK, Mich  –              
June is Pride Month and in the spirit of the month, Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services Equal Employment Office & MWR offices are offering ways to help celebrate the month.

Pride Month Icon Spotlights being sent by our Special Emphasis Program to the workforce highlight key LGBTQ+ figures throughout history and their impact on the community. The EEO SEP also brought in Dr. Matt Johnson-Roberts from Veteran’s Affairs in Battle Creek, Michigan to provide a virtual presentation on LGBTQ+ Veterans and Health.

21:10VIDEO  | 21:10 |LGBTQ+ Month – Veterans and Health

----

 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA DSHeritage and Diversity DSpride monthLGBTVideo DS
Exhibit 32.2

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,
United States Code), the undersigned officer of Immunomedics. Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011 (the Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 24, 2011                                   
|                                                         
|/s/    GERARD G.
GORMAN                                  
|Gerard G. Gorman                                         
|Senior Vice President Finance
and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2013215EN.01000601.xml

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2013 — Stefan Fahnenbrock v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-226/13)

2013/C 215/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stefan Fahnenbrock

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 [of the European Parliament and] of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service [in the Member States] of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters [(service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action — in which a purchaser of bonds issued by the defendant that were in the safe-keeping of S-Broker AG & Co. KG, in the securities account of the applicant, and in respect of which the applicant had not accepted the defendant’s exchange offer made at the end of February 2012, demands compensation for damages in the amount of the difference in value relative to an exchange of the bonds that was nonetheless effected in March 2012 and which was economically disadvantageous for the applicant — is to be regarded as a ‘civil or commercial matter’ within the meaning of the Regulation?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.

1

---
No. 00-877.

#### Kessler *v.*Crichton et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6813
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AARON BROCKINGTON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-90-100, CA-96-5-3) Submitted: September 24, 1996 Decided: October 9, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Aaron Brockington, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Elizabeth Evans, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Aaron Brockington appeals from the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Brockington , Nos. CR-90-100; CA-96-5-3 (E.D. Va. April 10, 1996, May 9, 1996). We deny Brockington's motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2307 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2307

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on yarn of carded cashmere 
                 of 19.35 metric yarn count or higher.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 19, 2012

 Mr. Lieberman introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on yarn of carded cashmere 
                 of 19.35 metric yarn count or higher.

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

SECTION 1. YARN OF CARDED CASHMERE OF 19.35 METRIC YARN COUNT OR 
              HIGHER.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.03.02 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to yarn of carded cashmere of 
19.35 metric yarn count or higher) is amended by striking the date in 
the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```