alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
le-ex1025_325.htm



EXHIBIT 10.25

 

September 4, 2019

 

 

Sarah Rasmusen

 

 

Dear Sarah,

 

We are pleased to confirm the details of your salary adjustment effective Aug 31, 2019. Your title will remain Chief Customer Officer and you will continue to report to me. We all believe the future of Lands' End will provide us with many opportunities for growth and the company is well positioned for continued success.

 

The following outlines the changes to your compensation package:

 


	
 
	
•
	
Annual base salary of $425,000 paid in bi-weekly payments. 




 


	
 
	
•
	
Continued participation in the Lands’ End, Inc. Annual Incentive Plan (“AIP”) with your annual target incentive opportunity increasing to 75% of your base salary as of your effective date.  Bonus is based on fiscal earnings and is payable by April 15, 2020. Should Lands’ End fiscal results warrant a bonus payment, your incentive payment would be pro-rated based on eligible earnings under each AIP target. 




 


	
 
	
•
	
Participation will continue in the Lands’ End Long-term Incentive program (“LTI”).  For FY2019, your target incentive opportunity under the LTI will remain at 75% of your base salary, as granted on March 25, 2019.  For future LTI Plans, your target incentive opportunity will increase to 100% of your base salary.  




 

Sarah, we all think highly of you and believe there will be opportunity to leverage your knowledge, experience, and leadership as we continue to grow as a trusted American lifestyle brand.  

 


	
Sincerely,
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
/s/ Jerome Griffith
	
 
	
/s/ Sarah Rasmusen

	
 
	
 
	
Sarah Rasmusen

	
Jerome Griffith
	
 
	
 

	
CEO & President
**To :**  **Cc: Bcc:**  **Subject: Re: Clarification regarding Rice et al. 2011 paper** 

**From: Daniel N Weber <dweber@uwm.edu>**  **To: Meredith Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA**  **Date: 07/19/2012 05:02 PM**  **Subject: Re: Clarification regarding your paper Rice et al. 2011** 



### Dr. Lassiter;

Thank you for including our paper in your chapter. You did not miss anything. Exposure concentrations were nominal based on serial dilutio ns from the stock solution. We were unable to accurately measure media concentrations. For the purposes of the experiment, embryo concentrations were more critica l so those were measured using 100 embryos per sample to ensure a significant conc entration could be measured. If you have any other questions, please feel free to a sk.

Daniel N. Weber, Ph.D. Senior Scientist Neurobehavioral Toxicology Facility Children's Environmental Health Sciences Center University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 600 E. Greenfield Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53204

**Dr. Weber:**

**I am contacting you in regards to your 2011 paper entitled; "Developmental lead exposure causes startle response deficits in zebrafish" published in Aquatic Toxicology (Aquatic Toxicology 105:600-608). I may**  **have missed this in reading the study but did you quantify the Pb in the exposure medium (10nM and 30nM concentrations)? I see that ICP-MS was used to check the Pb-free medium but I did not see a**  **specific statement regarding the quantification of the exposure concentrations . In the statistical analyses section it does state that ICP-MS analyses were subjected to a one-way ANOVA. We are including your**  **study in the EPA Integrated Science Assessment for Pb (Chapter 7, Ecological Effects of Pb) and prefer to report measured concentrations when they are available, especially since effects were observed at**  **very low concentrations.**

**Meredith Gooding Lassiter, Ph.D. Ecologist**  **National Center for Environmental Assessment U.S. Environmental Protection Agency**  **109 TW Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27711**  **lassiter.meredith@epa.gov**
**SCHEDULE 1 N** **2 PATENTS (As of**  **December 22 , 2009)**  United States **Patents**  U.S. Patent No. 7,028,782 “System and Method For Suppressing Fires”  U.S. Patent No. 6,016,874 “Compact Affordable Inert Gas Fire Extinguishing System”  U.S. Patent No. 6,257,341 “Compact Affordable Inert Gas Fire Extinguishing System”  U.S. Patent No. 7,455,120 “System and Method For Suppressing Fires” **Patent Applications**  U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/256,841 (Continuation of US Patent No. 7,455,120)  U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/878,999 “Sodium Azide Based Suppression of Fires”  U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/577,011 “System And Method For Sodium Azide Based Suppression of Fires” (Continuation
-In-Part of 11/878,999) Japan **Patent Applications**  Japanese Patent Application Serial No. JP2001 - 559550 “Compact Affordable Inert Gas Fire Extinguishing System”  Japanese Patent Application Serial No. JP2005 -509652 “System and Method For Suppressing Fires”  Japanese Patent Application Serial No. JP2009 -540562 “Sodium Azide Based Su ppression of Fires” Europe **Patents**  European Patent No. 1,251,910 “Compact Affordable Inert Gas Fire Extinguishing System”

– validations completed in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom **Patent Applications**  European Patent Application Serial No. EP 03753190.2 “System and Method For Suppressing Fires”  European Patent Application Serial No. EP 07855516.6 “Sodium Azide Based Suppression of Fires” NOTE: Hong Kong protection for this invention has been applied for through prosecution of this EPO application, filing certificate to be received at appropriate date. Australian **Patents**  Australian Patent No. 768429 “Compact Affordable Inert Gas Fire Extinguishing System” **Patent Applications**  Australian Patent Application Serial No. 2007332053 “Sodium Azide Bas ed Suppression of Fires” Canadian **Patent**  Canadian Patent No. 2,398,019 “Compact Affordable Inert Gas Fire Extinguishing System” **Patent Application**  Canadian Patent Application No. 2,499,963 “System and Method For Suppressing Fires”  Canadian Patent Application No. 2 , 670 , 709 “Sodium Azide Based Suppression of Fires” Chinese **Patent Applications**- 2 -

 Chinese Patent Application No. 03823073.9 “System and Method For Suppressing Fires”  Hong Kong Patent Application No. 06100616.8 “System and Method For Suppressing Fires”  Chinese Patent Application No. 200780045903.X “Sodium Azide Based Suppression of Fires” Indian **Patent Applications**  Indian Patent Application No. 3541/DELNP/2009 “Sodium Azide Based Suppression of Fires”
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Leo ROBINSON, Appellee.

No. 72-265.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 12, 1972.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Thomas J. Reddick, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS, Petitioner, v. Stanley LERNER, Respondent.

No. 41267.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 21, 1971.

John Germany, Tampa, for petitioner.

Stanley Lerner, in pro. per.

*853PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to Rule III, Section 22, of the Rules Relating to Admission to The Florida Bar, the Florida Board of Bar Examiners has made an investigation and submitted its findings and recommendations to this Court for final action.

The findings of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners include the following:

> “1. That under Item 101(d) in his application filed with the Board, the accuracy of which was sworn to by respondent on February 24, 1970, he falsely gave the negative answer ‘no’ to the following question :

> ‘Have any charges or complaints, formal or informal, ever been made or filed or proceedings instituted against you ?’

> well knowing said answer to be false in that a charge or complaint was made against him by one Wanda Horton which was sworn to on July 30, 1968, and submitted to the Judicial Inquiry on Professional Conduct of attorneys in the Second Judicial Department, Supreme Court, Kings County, New York, and which resulted in respondent’s ultimate disbarment from the practice of law effective March 1, 1971, by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department.

> “2. That under Item 101(e) in respondent’s application filed with the Board, the accuracy of which was sworn to by him on February 24, 1970, he falsely gave the negative answer ‘no’ to the following question:

> ‘Have you ever appeared, formally or informally, before a grievance or other similar committee of any bar association or other law group ?’

> well knowing said answer to be false in that he appeared, formally or informally, before the Brooklyn, New York Bar Association, Committee on Grievances on or about March 19, 1969, to respond to a complaint made by one Wanda Horton.”

It is the conclusion of this Court that the evidence before the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, as set forth in the foregoing findings, establishes that the respondent did gain admission to The Florida Bar Examination upon an application which was falsified, and accordingly the recommendation of the Board that the license heretofore issued to Stanley Lerner be revoked by this Court pursuant to Rule III, Section 22, of the Rule Relating to Admission to The Florida Bar, should be and the same is hereby approved and adopted as the decision of this Court.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, TJ., concur.
Page
      Seventy Three





Exhibit
32.1





Statement of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350








In connection with the Annual Report of
Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, as the 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 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.








/s/ C.E.
      PorterDate:
      March 23, 2009
            C.E.
      Porter, Chief Executive Officer
Ra”)

7-224, | Re

TWELFTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES. : zB

County eae yy) i oe |

State... = X_. =) | SCHEDULE N O.. {.—POPUL ATION. je District NE -k- | Sheet No.

i
Enumeration District No. pe tee | eel b_

x

Sapa re Wen ae poy I ef (OGL t421t ee Vv oT op ee ge
Township O7 other division of county——— Fae © meee 17 [Insert nam eof township, town, precinct, district, or other civil divisicrs, fin alierase may be S tions,] - A ame of In stitutt Ol, — oe ee Oe ee ee ee ee Sees eee ee
Name of incorporated city, town, or village, within the above-named division,-—,—-——-—-_--—---- See EEL FLV AE Ae ALE I CON vin eat EL ke Ward of city, Se? Ae oe

Enumerated by me on the -Z} A/___... day of June, 1900, wey: AIT = _____..._...., Enumerator.

LOCATION. NAME RELATION, PERSONAL DESCRIPTION. NATIVITY. CITIZENSHIP. Se en aorna OR EDUCATION. OWNERSHIP OF HOME.
: b f each person and PROFE

us| 2 of each person whose place of Siteur Sal PLE [gE |” States cive tho Sate or Toriory; if of forign birth give the Cones cay «| sg g : E

IN CITIES. & ‘ = : abode on June 1, 1900, was BIRTH. aS E 5 3 ’ . = = of each person TEN YEARS of age ra z
tz | 38 in this family. B45] g = ———] 33 |4 and over. S 2 \¢ 2

$ = =3 = si) ets 5s a = < 2 -

5 a a= Enter surnamo first, then the given name and Relationship of each - zr se s |5 3 3a : g g = fs & = ‘ g =

2 \sza| Se middle initial, if any person to the head |g S [eo] » = ‘ Ez |Cz] = es ye};2/]2)] ¢

E Se] se ‘ i of the family, E =z j=eu|s [Seals Place of birth of this Place of birth of Farurn Place of birth of Morure E2 |%sa = ag} 2. . 2 _

= be S = Month. | Year. | 32/52] 2 | eles Peusoy. of this person, of this person. = z E dasusanctis a ; = rj “AS ee 1 we =

= z s2#3| 3s INcLupE every person living on June 1, 1900. S | 2 1/43/ 4 | 53/32 c= | 32 E ; “apes F: : = =f1z > z
3 2 gs EF Ost children born since June 1, 1900. bs “ 2 | ss E 23 eS 2 ae 5 a8 es 5 = B z E z
_ 2 = -_ = Soies = =
a — a ai & | a | S\E°| 22° |2 Po z Fd a |< 3 5 376|),é/8] 2
i 1 g 3 4 5S a 7 8 bt] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is i9 2 22 23 et 25 26 27 28

|

Nehirltrrr, Sppurashorredl N) HL
2 bho pat Vi ( d M

in tMbel litle. Wk pl|\ |.
/,

oh y hl lp a Maid Aaf) W, NAR f
Olt | bot Mattie
ya i P) x (We A Ks

the National Archives and Records Administration,
s (Wek not the U.S. Census Bureau.

@ Visit http:/Mwww.archives.gov for more information about publicly

B available records like the one shown here.

HL Y83 8 (Mbpaclraa. hy

2 sa 1 il 4
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15471]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 15, 2018.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Bern Bancshares, Inc., Bern, Kansas; to acquire 6.5 percent of 
the voting shares of UBT Bancshares, Inc., Marysville, Kansas, and 
thereby indirectly acquire United Bank & Trust, Marysville, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 16, 2018.
Ann Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2018-15471 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
#### Marcilleo MALDONADO, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 71-657.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 2, 1971.

Habeas corpus denied.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 01-50349

Summary Calendar

_______________________

MARK KYLE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

OF NORTH AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas, Austin

A-00-CV-195-JN

_________________________________________________________________

October 17, 2001

Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mark Kyle, the plaintiff, appeals the district court’s grant

of summary judgment for Indemnity Insurance Company of North

America (“Indemnity”). For the reasons stated by the district

court in its order, we affirm.

The question in this contractual dispute is whether damage to

the engine of Kyle’s aircraft is covered by a comprehensive
2

insurance policy issued by Indemnity. The insurance policy

contains a section entitled “Losses Not Covered,” which contains

the following sub-section: 

Wear and tear to engines. We will not cover the

following types of damage to your aircraft’s engines or

auxiliary power units: 

[1] damage caused by heat that results from the

operation, attempted operation, or shutdown of the

engine.

[2] damage caused by the breakdown, failure, or

malfunction of any engine part or accessory. 

[3] damage caused by an object not part of the engine or

its accessories, whether the damage results from

ingestion of the object or not. . . .

At the summary judgment stage, Indemnity presented evidence

that the damage to Kyle’s aircraft was caused by excessive heat

resulting from the pilot’s attempt to start the engine. Kyle does

not dispute that heat caused the damage. Instead, Kyle insists

that the insurance policy is ambiguous because not all heat damage

is related to “wear and tear,” as that phrase is ordinarily

understood.

Kyle’s appeal to the everyday understanding of “wear and tear”

is inconsistent with the principle that individual phrases must be

read in the context of the contract as a whole. See State Farm

Life Ins. Co. v. Beaston, 907 S.W.2d 430, 433 (Tex. 1995). The

sub-section heading -- “wear and tear to engines” -- is nothing

more than a short-hand introduction to the specific provisions

included in that sub-section. In other words, the contractual
3

meaning of “wear and tear to engines” is supplied by the three

specific references (to heat damage, malfunctioning parts, and

foreign objects) that follow the caption. To quote the district

court, “The insured must read beyond the caption to ascertain the

specific types of damage the policy defines as wear and tear and

excludes from coverage.” The judgment is therefore

A F F I R M E D .
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE**

**SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AND**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of International Wire Group, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                    |   |                           |
|-------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|
| Dated: November 7, 2008 |   | /s/ RODNEY D. KENT             |
|                    |   | Name: Rodney D. Kent           |
|                    |   | Title: Chief Executive Officer |
#### Daniel BENITEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-535.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 23, 1970.

Robert W. Rawlins, Public Defender, and John M. Gilbert, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael N. Kavouklis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PIERCE, Judge.

This is a direct appeal by appellant Daniel Benitez to review a judgment of *522conviction and sentence to the State Prison pursuant to a jury verdict finding Benitez guilty of assault with intent to commit armed robbery. The local Public Defender was duly appointed to represent Benitez on the appeal.

In due course, Hon. John M. Gilbert, of the Public Defender’s office, filed a brief here wherein he stated that he had “read and re-read” the entire record in the cause; that he had “thoroughly discussed” the case with the trial attorney for Benitez; that he had concluded there was “a total absence of any justifiable issue which could be presented on appeal”; and that he could not “honestly and conscientiously argue the Assignments of Error” theretofore filed in the cause by Benitez. Mr. Gilbert thereupon moved this Court to allow him to withdraw as counsel of record for Benitez on the appeal. Mr. Gilbert also, on June 17, 1970, filed in this Court a certificate showing that a true copy of his said brief on behalf of Benitez had been furnished to Benitez at the Florida State Prison. Attached to said certificate was a return receipt signed by Benitez establishing that copy of said brief was received by him on June 12, 1970.

Thereupon, on June 18, 1970, this Court entered order reciting the service of copy of said brief, and allowing Benitez thirty days therefrom to “file an additional brief calling the Court’s attention to any matters that he feels should be considered in connection with the appeal in this cause”, in accordance with a procedural formula indicated by the U. S. Supreme Court in Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493.

Benitez then filed here a “Response” wherein he moved this Court for an order appointing substitute counsel to represent him on this appeal, which motion was denied by this Court on July 2, 1970. Thereafter, on July 30, 1970, Benitez filed here an additional motion, wherein he asked to “be granted leave to proceed in Pro Se” and to “remand this cause back to dle lower Court in order that” his constitutional rights be restored”. The Court herewith denies the latter motion as being unauthorized and unwarranted.

The thirty days period has long expired since this Court’s order of June 18, 1970 aforesaid. We have examined the record in this cause and fail to find any reversible error therein. It appears that Benitez received a fair trial.

The judgment and sentence appealed is therefore

Affirmed.

LILES, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7652

DEREK SPROUSE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cv-00670-RDA-IDD)

Submitted: March 29, 2022 Decided: April 1, 2022

Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek Sprouse, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derek Sprouse, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order dismissing, on 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A review, his petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order directing 

the Supreme Court of Virginia to act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Sprouse v. Virginia, No. 1:21-cv00670-RDA-IDD (E.D. Va. Nov. 5, 2021). We deny Sprouse’s motion for the appointment 

of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 00-1165.

#### Negele *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.