alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
4.76


 


Summary
of the Third Amendment to Rural Partnership Agreement, entered into on September 8, 2021, in connection with Fazenda Jatobá. 


 


Parties:
Imobiliária Jaborandi Ltda., as the owner of the land; Jaborandi Agrícola Ltda., as the operating company; and John Kudiess
and Harald Kudiess as the individuals interested in entering a rural partnership with the abovementioned companies.


 


Purpose:  Amend
the Rural Partnership Agreement, entered into on June 30, 2020, as amended on February 8,
2021 and on May 6, 2021, in connection with the possession and exploitation of 3,386 arable hectares
of Fazenda Jatobá, in order to extend until December, 2021 the reimbursement
maturity date in the amount of R$672,642.95 that is pending in favor of John Kudiess and Harald Kudiess.
#### In re ORDER: DETENTION AND SHELTER CARE.

No. 73-565.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 8, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County.

Appeal dismissed.
#### CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-5040.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 2, 2002.

ON MOTION

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the parties’ joint motion for dismissal of this appeal,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
#### Sandra BROWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-723.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 24, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and Lewis S. Kinder, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ-

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order revoking probation and imposing sentence.

We have considered the record on appeal, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that no reversible error has been made to appear. See Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682, 32 So.2d 607; State ex rel. Roberts v. Cochran, Fla.1962, 140 So.2d 597; Crossin v. State, Fla.App.1971, 244 So.2d 142.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2   Certifications   I, Donald R. Breivogel, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of American General Finance, Inc. (the registrant);  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 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; and  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; and  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; and  b) 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.   Date:November 8, 2007/s/Donald R. Breivogel, Jr.Donald R. Breivogel, Jr.Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer   45
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.21.1




                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                              CONSULTING AGREEMENT




It has been agreed between the parties that Paragraph 5, Compensation -
Consulting Term, Sub-paragraph (a) Fee, to a Consulting Agreement of October 9,
1992, between Louis B. Horwitz and Datum Inc. shall be modified to read as
follows:

         As compensation for Horwitz's services as a consultant, Datum shall pay
         Horwitz a fee in the sum of $8,333.33 per day plus travel expenses, if
         any, for each day Horwitz is called upon to render such services.
         During the Consulting Term, Horwitz shall be guaranteed a minimum of
         twelve (12) days of consulting services. In the event he is called upon
         for a lesser number of days, he shall, nonetheless, be compensated for
         the minimum number of days set forth. Payment shall be on or before the
         first day of each month.



                                      Datum, Inc.
                                      A Delaware Corporation



/s/ Louis B. Horwitz                  /s/ David A. Young
-------------------------             ------------------------------------------
Louis B. Horwitz                      David A. Young
                                      Vice President, Finance and Administration



                                      /s/ Dan L. McGurk
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Dan L. McGurk, Chairman
                                      Compensation Committee
                                      Board of Directors
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2563 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2563

   To exclude from gross income $10,200 in wages or net earnings of 
                certain taxpayers for taxable year 2020.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2021

  Mr. Bergman (for himself and Mrs. Hinson) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To exclude from gross income $10,200 in wages or net earnings of 
                certain taxpayers for taxable year 2020.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Essential Worker Tax Parity Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. CERTAIN INCOME NOT INCLUDIBLE IN GROSS INCOME.

    (a) Special Exclusion From Gross Income for 2020.--Notwithstanding 
any other provision of law, for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986, in the case of any taxable year beginning in 2020, if the 
adjusted gross income of the taxpayer for such taxable year is less 
than $150,000 (determined without regard to this subsection), the gross 
income of such taxpayer shall not include so much of the wages 
(determined under section 3401(a) of such Code) or net earnings from 
self-employment (as defined in section 1402(a) of such Code) of the 
taxpayer (or, in the case of a joint return, of each spouse) as does 
not exceed $10,200.
    (b) Denial of Double Benefit.--The amount of the exclusion 
allowable under subsection (a) shall be reduced by the amount of the 
exclusion allowed under section 85(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (relating to suspension of tax on portion of unemployment 
compensation).
                                 <all>
```
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134553 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: 134553 COA: 267299 Oakland CC: 2004-195538-FC GREG ALLEN WINER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 17, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1022 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.

October 29, 2007

Clerk
#### Iris R. KRISCHER, Appellant, v. Kenneth N. KRISCHER, Appellee.

No. 77-2123.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 9, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 2, 1978.

*855Sandler & Sandler and Arthur S. Weitz-ner, Miami, for appellant.

Martin M. Dernis and Edward S. Polk, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant, plaintiff below, brings this interlocutory appeal from an order entered by the trial court modifying a divorce judgment by increasing the amount of her alimony, but denying her motion for an increase in child support and denying her application for allowance of attorney’s fees and costs.

Appellant, contends among other things, that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her an increase in child support payments and by failing to adequately increase the amount of her alimony payments.

In our opinion, the record reflects substantial competent evidence upon which the trial court could have properly denied appellant an increase in her child support payments and upon which it could have properly increased, by the amount which it did, her alimony payments. Reversal of those portions of the trial court’s order denying appellant an increase in child support and allowing her an increase in alimony would require our revaluation of the evidence and testimony, and the substitution of our judgment for that of the trial court. This we are not permitted to do. See *Herzog v. Herzog,*346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977); and *Shaw v. Shaw,*334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976).

Appellant’s other points on appeal are without merit. Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge, dissents.
#### Florence A. SHERMAN and Edith Elizabeth Sherman, Appellants, v. Wilbur C. HOLZAPFEL, Appellee.

No. 69-590.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 20, 1970.

George H. Brown, III, St. Petersburg, for appellants.

Charles S. Carrere, of Roney, Ulmer, Woodworth & Jacobs, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

PIERCE, Judge.

This is an interlocutory appeal by appellants Florence A. Sherman and Edith Elizabeth Sherman, defendants in the Court below, from an order permitting appellee Wilbur C. Holzapfel, plaintiff below, to file an amended complaint in an automobile negligence case, adding Michigan Mutual Liability Company as an additional party defendant and granting a motion requiring the production of a liability insurance policy for inspection and copying.

The motions had been filed by plaintiff Holzapfel pursuant to the Supreme Court opinion in Shingleton v. Bussey, Fla.1969, *551223 So.2d 713, which now permits, in automobile accident cases, the inclusion of the defendant’s automobile liability insurance carrier as a party defendant.

The Shermans contended in the lower Court, and now contend here, that the order of the lower Court, predicated admittedly upon *Shingleton,*denies the insurance carrier, Michigan Mutual Liability Company, equal protection of the laws, denies the carrier due process of law, and impairs the obligation of its insurance contract with the Shermans, all in violation of the Federal and State Constitutions.

Such argument is clearly untenable. In the first place, the carrier is not even yet a party to the cause and is therefore not complaining. And while the Shermans might not look with approval upon the carrier being joined as a party defendant, they cannot speak for the carrier, nor press legal contentions which belong solely to the carrier. It is not inconceivable that the carrier might in fact not be averse to being made a party defendant. Certainly, however, it is a matter of judgment personal to the carrier.

In the second place, the Circuit Court and this Court must presume such constitutional objections to have been laid at rest by the Supreme Court’s opinion in *Shingleton.*In that case the State high Court held that insurance carriers could be made parties defendant in automobile accident liability cases where the principal defendants have insurance coverage. It must be presumed that the Supreme Court carefully considered all constitutional objections to such landmark holding and negated the same. The doctrine announced in *Shingleton*cannot be relitigated or reconsidered either in the Circuit Court or here.

The interlocutory order appealed is therefore—

Affirmed.

LILES, Acting C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
258 La. 571

#### Stephen H. HARMON v. LOUISIANA WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES COMMISSION.

No. 51321.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 13, 1971.

In re: Stephen H. Harmon applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, State Civil Service Commission. 244 So.2d 922.

Writ refused. The result is correct.
#### Joseph C. McKAHAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-67.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 22, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Paul L. CURTIS et ux., Petitioners, v. Robert L. CHAPMAN, Jr., et al., Respondents.

No. 42896.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 21, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
AGENDA 

Financial Literacy and Education Commission Public Meeting 

May 22, 2012 10:30 am–12:00 pm

U.S. Department of the Treasury – Cash Room

Welcome and Remarks from the Chair and Vice Chair

Cyrus Amir-Mokri, Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions, US Department of the Treasury

Melissa Koide, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Financial Education, Financial Access and Consumer Protection, 

US Department of the Treasury

Richard Cordray, Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Financial Literacy and Education Commission Updates

Working Group Updates 

Research and Evaluation: Jeanne Hogarth, Manager, Consumer Research Section 

 Division of Consumer and Community Affairs

 Federal Reserve Board of Governors

Core Competencies and Luke Reynolds, Acting Associate Director, Community Affairs

Financial Access: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

Outreach: Jacqueline Snee, Financial Literacy Communications Manager, Federal 

Citizen Information Center, Office of Citizen Services and Innovative 

Technologies, U.S. General Services Administration 

National Strategy: Debra Golding, Deputy Director for Education and Outreach, 

Employee Benefits Security Administration, US Department of Labor

Other Commission Updates 

Financial Education Approaches– Mobile Communications as a Tool 

Jeanne Hogarth, Manager, Consumer Research Section, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, 

Federal Reserve Board of Governors

Audie Atienza, Senior Health Technology Advisor, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health 

and Human Services 

Conclusion and Next Steps 

Next Public Meeting Tentatively Scheduled: October 4, 2012

Participants and guests are encouraged to stay for a demonstration of Ask CFPB following the conclusion of 

the meeting.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hawaiian Telcom Holdco, Inc. (the "Company") for the
period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert F. Reich, Chief Financial Officer 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 to my knowledge:



March 28, 2011

/s/ ROBERT F. REICH Robert F. Reich Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,543
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,033
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,494
<INVENTORY>                                     54,472
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               136,568
<PP&E>                                          63,827
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 235,972
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,485
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,708
<OTHER-SE>                                     112,744
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   235,972
<SALES>                                         67,210
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,210
<CGS>                                           41,553
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,553
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,220
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 449
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,988
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,246
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,742
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,742
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
        

</TABLE>
Sanitized Manufacture of Substrate-Infused Carbon 

Nanostructure Complex on Substrate Number One 

50 – 100 Micron Length
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>       5
<CIK>      0000027099
<NAME>    DATATAB, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          8,753
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 221,911
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                     1,275
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              236,525
<PP&E>                                        126,680
<DEPRECIATION>                                122,480
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                241,345
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         156,066
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         788,955
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (722,276)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  241,345
<SALES>                                        58,448
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               64,625
<CGS>                                          87,870
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 128,567
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (63,942)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (63,942)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (63,942)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        



</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 11 CT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
AND SUBSIDIARIES Computation of Earnings Per Share
(in thousands, except per share data) Three months ended June 30,
    
    
    Six months ended June 30,2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003(Restated)
    
    
    (Restated)
    
    
    (Restated)
    
    
    (Restated)Computation of share totals used in
computing earnings per share:Basic weighted average number of
shares outstanding
    
    
    18,876
    
    
    
    18,740
    
    
    
    18,855
    
    
    
    18,728Incremental shares arising from
outstanding stock options
    
    
    175
    
    
    
    42
    
    
    
    144
    
    
    
    20Total weighted average number of
diluted shares outstanding
    
    
    19,051
    
    
    
    18,782
    
    
    
    18,999
    
    
    
    18,748Income from continuing operations
    
    $
    4,165
    
    
    $
    10,996
    
    
    $
    8,404
    
    
    $
    13,828Loss from discontinued operations
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (424
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (424
    )Net income
    
    $
    4,165
    
    
    $
    10,572
    
    
    $
    8,404
    
    
    $
    13,404Net income for common stock
    
    $
    4,160
    
    
    $
    10,567
    
    
    $
    8,394
    
    
    $
    13,394Basic earnings (loss) per share:Continuing operations
    
    $
    0.22
    
    
    $
    0.59
    
    
    $
    0.45
    
    
    $
    0.74Discontinued operations
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (0.02
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (0.02
    )Net income for common stock
    
    
    0.22
    
    
    
    0.56
    
    
    
    0.45
    
    
    
    0.72Diluted earnings (loss) per share:Continuing operations
    
    $
    0.22
    
    
    $
    0.59
    
    
    $
    0.44
    
    
    $
    0.74Discontinued operations
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (0.02
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (0.02
    )Net income for common stock
    
    
    0.22
    
    
    
    0.56
    
    
    
    0.44
    
    
    
    0.71
#### Anne PETTERSEN and George Pettersen, Appellants, v. George SILVERS, Appellee.

No. 69-717.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Dec. 19, 1969.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; James C. Downey, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.