alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Employment agreement with David Whittle



 
Exhibit 10.36

[Koppers Industries, Inc. Letterhead] 
 
August 18, 2000 
 
Dr. David Whittle 
Vice President, Koppers Europe 
KOPPERS UK LIMITED 
Meridian House 
Normanby Road 
Scunthorpe 
North Lincolnshire DN15 8QX 
UNITED KINGDOM 
 
Dear David: 
 
This letter is to confirm our recent conversation regarding your compensation,
management incentive participation, and general terms of employment as vice president and general manager of Koppers Europe. 
 
Effective August 1, 2000 your annual base salary will be increased to f131,000 pounds sterling. Your performance will be reviewed on an annual basis and
future salary adjustments will be reviewed each April 1 commencing April 1, 2001. 
 
For the 2000 program, we will establish an incentive plan for you based on Koppers Europe’s EBIT performance as measured against the EBIT program of $3.1 million (U.S.) for the period June 1, 2000 through December 31,
2000. In order to earn an incentive payment under this plan, actual EBIT performance must exceed the programmed EBIT. At 110% of EBIT program, your incentive earnings will equal 10% of your salary, at 120% of EBIT program, your incentive earnings
will equal 20% of your salary, and at 130% or higher of EBIT performance your incentive earnings will equal 30% of your annual salary. For 2001, an incentive plan will be implemented based on a percentage of EBIT in excess of a charge for capital
employed in the division. 
 
In addition to these changes in
compensation, if the company should ever terminate your employment for any reason other than gross misconduct, you shall be given twelve (12) months notice of termination or, at the company’s option, pay in lieu of notice. 
 
In exchange for the terms of employment outlined in this letter, you agree to
an immediate termination of the service agreement you entered into with Bitmac Limited on March 31, 1989 as amended on September 14, 1999 and also agree to withdraw your letter of resignation dated September 14, 1999 indicating your desire to resign
your position on March 31, 2004. 







 
Dr. David Whittle 
Incentive Compensation 
August 18, 2000 
Page - 2 - 
 
I
hope that this covers all of the issues we discussed. If you are in agreement with these new terms and conditions of employment, please sign and return a copy of this letter for our file. 
 
I look forward to working with you as you build a successful Koppers Europe. 
 
Sincerely, 
 

	
	 /s/ Walter W. Turner


	 Walter W. Turner


 
T/k 
 

	 	 	 	 	 
	
	 Accepted:
	 	 /s/ Dr. David Whittle

	 	 Date: 6/9/00
	 	 
	 	 	 Dr. David Whittle
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 207 (Monday, October 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55594-55598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28352]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary
[Transmittal No. 98-06]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Assistance Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. J. Hurd, DSAA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 98-06, with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, and Certification Under Section 620C(d) of the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1961.

    Dated: October 20, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5000-04-M

[[Page 55595]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27OC97.000



[[Page 55596]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27OC97.001



[[Page 55597]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27OC97.002



[[Page 55598]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27OC97.003



[FR Doc. 97-28352 Filed 10-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-C
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

220) IV-C-187 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:21:03 AM Sheet 220 of 232 
OEC06 1991 

'&L-C-H7 

Mr. Marvin W. Jackson 

5133 Provincia l Drive l/y'i JAN / fi J99? 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 ; 

Dear Mr. Jackson: LJ~ ^ ^>R T 

This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1991 to 

President George H. Bush regarding recent actions by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . In your letter, you 

expressed concern regarding 1) use of old data for several areas in 

EPA's oxygenated gasoline program and 2) continuing efforts by EPA 

to issue regulations for onboard refueling vapor recovery systems. 

We appreciate your interest in these two rulemakings. 

We discussed your first concern with EPA's Field Operations 

and Support Division in Washington, D.C. and found that EPA plans 

to address this issue in a supplemental Federal Register notice for 

the oxygenated gasoline program. A draft of that notice contains 

a footnote explaining that the Agency has determined that 1988 and 

1989 data from several areas is inadequate to properly characterize 

the ambient concentrations of CO. Therefore, for those areas -

Boston, Cleveland, Seattle, and Washington D.C. - older more 

representative data has been used. 

As to your second concern regarding EPA efforts to issue 

regulations requiring onboard vapor recovery systems, we note that 

onboard controls are mandated in section 202(a) (6) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) . That decision was made by Congress and EPA must proceed 

with the rulemaking process for onboard controls as required by the 

CAA. As part of this process, Congress directed the EPA to consult 

with the Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding onboard 

system safety. This consultation is well underway. The National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) , which is part of the 

DOT, released a study of onboard system safety in July 1991. We 

have reviewed this study and have placed a copy in the public 

docket for this rulemaking. We also held a public hearing on 

September 26th and 27th in order to solicit comments from the 

public on this issue. Written comments were accepted through 

October 27th. As I'm sure you are aware, there are a number of 

commenters who shared your concerns over onboard safety and raised 

the merits of Stage II controls over onboard. We are in the 

process of making the final determination on how to proceed with 

the rule based on DOT's conclusions regarding safety risks of 

onboard systems and on the record developed during the comment 

period. 
P.3 

I 

«• 

Thank you again for your letter. It will be included in the 

public docket. Please feel free to contact Don Kopinski of my 

staff at (313) 668-4229 if you require any additional information. 

Sincerely yours, 

Charles L. Gray, Jr. 

Director 

Emission Control Technology Division 

cc: Public Docket A-87-11
#### James Harley SPELLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-881.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 19, 1973.

*55Ben L. Bryan, Jr., of Bryan & Koble-gard, Fort Pierce, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Fredric J. Scott and C. Marie Bernard, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

OWEN, Chief Judge.

Appellant was convicted of second degree murder of one John Reschak. We conclude from our view of the record that the evidence will not sustain a conviction of homicide in any degree other than manslaughter, and we therefore reverse the judgment and sentence and remand for entry of a judgment of guilt of manslaughter and appropriate sentence thereon.

In the course of what was otherwise a very complete and comprehensive charge to the jury on its duties and on the law to be applied, the court omitted from Standard July Instruction 2.11, “PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND REASONABLE DOUBT” the following two paragraphs:

> “The presumption accompanies and abides with the defendant as to each and every material allegation in the information through each stage of the trial until it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.”

> “To overcome the presumption of innocence of the defendant and establish his guilt, it is not sufficient to furnish evidence merely tending to prove guilt, nor to prove a mere probability of guilt, but proof of guilt to the exclusion of and beyond every reasonable doubt is absolutely necessary.”

In deviating from the standard jury instruction, the trial judge did not state on the record or in a separate order the respect in which he found the standard form erroneous or inadequate, and the legal basis of his finding. The unexplained omission of these portions of Standard Jury Instruction 2.11 is error. Nonetheless, we conclude that the error was harmless because the remainder of that instruction adequately explains that the presumption of innocence does not leave the defendant unless and until every material allegation of the information has been proved and that the indispensable quantum of proof is evidence to the exclusion of and beyond every reasonable doubt.

We therefore conclude that a new trial is not necessary and that upon remand an appropriate judgment and sentence for manslaughter should be imposed.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

CROSS, J., and SHOLTS, THOMAS, Associate Judge, concur.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2008-0442 Directorate ID: 2007-SW-24-AD

Helicopter Model: Various Sikorsky-Manufactured Transport and Restricted Category

Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 60 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to prevent main rotor shaft (MRS) structural failure, 

loss of power to the main rotor, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $44,753 to replace an MRS

Labor per Helicopter

(At $85/work-hour, it would 

take 2.2 work-hours for the 

nondestructive inspection 

(NDI) plus a $50 consumable 

cost and 2.2 work-hours to 

replace an MRS)

$237 for the NDI

$237 to replace an MRS

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $474

Total US Fleet Cost $14,420 for the NDI and $44,940 to replace an 

MRS.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Jeffrey Lee
Amended Consulting Agreement-George Furla



 
Exhibit
4.1(b) 
 
Amendment No. 1 to Consulting
Agreement 
Between Calypte Biomedical Corporation 
and George Furla 
 
This Agreement amends and modifies the Consulting Agreement between Calypte Biomedical Corporation (“Calypte” or the “Company”) and George Furla (“Consultant”) dated
November 20, 2002 and is effective as of February 14, 2003. 
 
Whereas, the Company desires to extend the time period during which Consultant will provide services to the Company pursuant to the above referenced Consulting Agreement and Consultant is agreeable to extending the time for providing
such services. 
 
Now therefore, in consideration of the premises
and mutual promises set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 

	  	 1.	  	 The term of Consultant’s Consulting Agreement shall be extended and, by virtue of this Amendment, shall terminate on May 20, 2003 rather than February 20,
2003. 

 

	  	 2.	  	 In consideration for the extension of the services to be performed by Consultant, the Company will immediately grant to Consultant a warrant to purchase 3,000,000
shares of the registered common stock of the Company at $0.05 per share, or an aggregate purchase price of $150,000. All compensation pursuant to the Consulting Agreement and this Amendment is fully earned upon execution of this amendment. The
warrant is immediately exercisable upon grant and will expire on May 14, 2003. 

 

	  	 3.	  	 The Consultant will provide to Calypte’s Executive Chairman a written report of services rendered and results thereof each 90 days of this extended contract
within 30 days of the contract’s quarter end. 

 

	  	 4.	  	 All other terms and conditions of the Consultant Agreement dated November 20, 2002 remain unchanged. 

 

	  Consultant:
	  	  	  	  CALYPTE BIOMEDICAL
CORPORATION

	
	  By:
	  	  /s/    GEORGE
FURLA        

	  	  	  	  By:
	  	  /s/    RICHARD D.
BROUNSTEIN        


	  	  	  George Furla
	  	  	  	  	  	  Richard D. Brounstein
  Executive Vice President & CFO
# L_2005108EN.01001601.xml

| 29.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 108/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 108/16

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 658/2005

of 28 April 2005

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar to certain third countries for the 24th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1) and in particular the second indent of Article 27(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 of 19 July 2004 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2004/2005 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 of 19 July 2004 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2004/2005 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 24th partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 the maximum amount of the export refund shall be 40,487 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 29 April 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 April 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 246, 20.7.2004, p. 23. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1685/2004 (OJ L 303, 30.9.2004, p. 21).

2

---
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  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 on Form 10-Q of SSP Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2002 (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|Dated: March 21, 2003 |  | By: |  | /s/ MARVIN J. WINKLER
  
Marvin J. Winkler Co-Chief Executive Officer
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------

In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SSP Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report"),
the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|Dated: March 21, 2003 |  | By: |  | /s/ KRIS SHAH
  
Kris Shah Co-Chief Executive Officer
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------

In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SSP Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report"),
the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



|Dated: March 21, 2003 |  | By: |  | /s/ THOMAS E. SCHIFF
  
Thomas E. Schiff Chief Financial Officer
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
# L_2005104EN.01004601.xml

| 23.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 104/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 104/46

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 607/2005 of 18 April 2005 amending, for the fourth time, Council Regulation (EC) No 1763/2004 imposing certain restrictive measures in support of effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 100 of 20 April 2005
  )

On page 18, in point 2(c):

for:

‘Lukic, Milan. Date of birth: 6.9.1967. Place of birth: Visegrad, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nationality: (a) Bosnia and Herzegovina, (b) possibly Serbia and Montenegro.’,

read:

‘Lukic, Sreten. Date of birth: 28.3.1955. Place of birth: Visegrad, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nationality: Serbia and Montenegro.’

---
Item 77C  DWS High Income Trust
Registrant incorporates by reference to
its Proxy Statement filed on April 16, 2009
(SEC Accession No. 0000950137-09-003036).
The Annual Meeting of Shareholders
(the "Meeting") of DWS High Income
Trust (the "Fund") was held on May 28, 2009
at the New York Marriott East Side,
525 Lexington Avenue, New York,
New York 10017. At the Meeting,
the following matters were voted upon by
the shareholders (the resulting
votes are presented below).

1.	Election of Trustees - Class I

Number of Votes:

For
Withheld
Dawn-Marie Driscoll
26,279,197
2,484,705
Keith R. Fox
26,293,960
2,469,942
Richard J. Herring
26,274,466
2,489,437
William N. Searcy, Jr.
26,274,088
2,489,815
Robert H. Wadsworth
26,285,286
2,478,616

2.	Convert the Fund from a closed-end
investment company to an open-end investment
company and authorize certain related
amendments to the Fund's Declaration
of Trust.

Number of Votes:
For
Against
Abstain
1,748,554
11,966,980
605,787



C:\Documents and Settings\e444940\Local
Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8B\
77C - DWS High Income Trust
shareholder mtg.rtf
Exhibit 32.1







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







In connection
with the Quarterly report of Bio-Matrix Scientific Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



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.





|Date: August 20,
    2013 | By: | /s/ David R. Koos                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                          |     | David
                                                                                                                                                                                                  R. KoosChief Executive Officer





A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or other document authentications, acknowledging,
or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Bio-Matrix Scientific Group, Inc. and will be retained by Bio-Matrix Scientific Group, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.