alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014373EN.01001201.xml

| 21.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/12

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 373/10)

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Aurillac – Paris (Orly) |
| Period of validity of the contract | From 1 June 2015 to 31 May 2019 |
| Deadline for the submission of applications and tenders | 15 January 2015, before 17:30, Paris time (France) |
| Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligations can be obtained | Département du Cantal |
| Service des Marchés |
| 28 Avenue Gambetta |
| 15015 Aurillac Cedex |
| FRANCE |
| Contacts: |
| Marc-Antoine Le-Minh-Triet |
| Pôle Déplacements et Infrastructures |
| Tel. +33 471462249 |
| Fax +33 471465982 |
| E-mail: servicetransports@cg15.fr |
| Olivier Brieda |
| Service des Marchés |
| Tel. +33 471462257 |
| Fax +33 471465954 |
| E-mail: marchespublics@cg15.fr |

Member State

France

Route concerned

Aurillac – Paris (Orly)

Period of validity of the contract

From 1 June 2015 to 31 May 2019

Deadline for the submission of applications and tenders

15 January 2015, before 17:30, Paris time (France)

Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligations can be obtained

Département du Cantal

Service des Marchés

28 Avenue Gambetta

15015 Aurillac Cedex

FRANCE

Contacts:

Marc-Antoine Le-Minh-Triet

Pôle Déplacements et Infrastructures

Tel. +33 471462249

Fax +33 471465982

E-mail: servicetransports@cg15.fr

Olivier Brieda

Service des Marchés

Tel. +33 471462257

Fax +33 471465954

E-mail: marchespublics@cg15.fr

---
EXHIBIT 10.17



CASH COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS



The following are the annual salaries and annual bonus/commission arrangements of our named executive officers as of February 28, 2005.



|                      |  |                                                                                |  |           |  |                           |  |                       
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | --------- |  | ------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Name                  |  | Position                                                                       |  | Salary    |  | Bonus/Commission @ Target |  | Target Annual Earnings
|Anthony Bettencourt   |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director                                |  | $500,000  |  | $175,000 Bonus            |  | $675,000              
|Michael D. Mooney     |  | Senior Vice President, North American Sales and Business Development           |  | $275,000  |  | $175,000 Commission       |  | $450,000              
|Sunil D. Nagdev       |  | Senior Vice President, Professional Services and Technical Support             |  | $250,000  |  | $100,000 Commission       |  | $350,000              
|Hugo Sluimer          |  | Senior Vice President, International Sales and European Operations             |  | *232,000 |  | * 218,000 Commission     |  | *450,000             
|Steven R. Springsteel |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration, and Chief Financial Officer |  | $360,000  |  | $72,000 Bonus             |  | $432,000              

---

|* | Euro exchange rate as of March 31, 2005 was $ 1.2916 per 1.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------



Verity has adopted bonus plan whereby 25% of the annual target is earned on a quarterly basis based upon Company performance criteria determined and approved by its Board
of Directors. Payout for this bonus is done on an annual basis (typically within 90 days after May 31st), and payout
for earned bonus amounts are made only to employees of record on the date of the payout.



Veritys Commission plan is based on annual sales quotas established at the beginning of the fiscal year and is earned and paid on a monthly basis.



Verity also pays insurance premiums paid on behalf of such executive officer for life insurance coverage in excess of a base amount of
$50,000 in coverage, other than Mr. Sluimer, in the amount of $240 per year. Named executive officers also receive stock options under Veritys stock option plans, and participate in Veritys Executive Health Program.



In addition to these named executive officers, we have three other executive officers who
receive base salaries and bonuses in amounts commensurate to their position and role with the Company.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2019 (the “Report”) of New Mountain Finance Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Shiraz Y. Kajee, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:





|    |                                                                                                                                  
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.




/s/ SHIRAZ Y. KAJEEName:Shiraz Y. KajeeDate:August 7, 2019
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEVON INVESTMENT, INC.,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ANDES INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 17205

D.C. No. 2:15

- cv

- 00604

- NVW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 14, 2019 **

San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Andes Industries, Inc. (“Andes”) appeals the district court’s entry of

summary judgment in favor of Devon Investment, Inc. (“Devon”) , ordering Andes

to pay Devon the amount due on a note . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo

,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 6 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Newsom , 919 F.3d 1148, 1150

– 51 (9 th Cir. 2019), and

we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the fa cts, we omit them.

Andes argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because it has

outstanding claims that could be used to support a setoff defense. Even if this were

once true, we affirmed the dismissal of the claims Andes bases its setoff defense on

in Andes Industries, Inc., et al. v. Cheng Sun Lan, et al. , No. 17

- 17059 (9th Cir.

May 16, 2019) and Andes Industries, Inc., et al. v. EZConn Corp., et al. , No. 17

-

17058 (9th Cir. May 23, 2019) . A potential setoff defense is therefore no barrier to

th e entry of summary judgment.

Andes also argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because it has

a viable fraud defense to the enforcement of the note. However, the district court

did not err in holding that this defense had been waived because Andes failed to

plead it in its an swer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) (fraud is an affirmative defense);

Metcalf v. Golden (In re Adbox, Inc.) , 488 F.3d 836, 841 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[A]

defendant’s failure to raise an ‘affirmative defense’ in his answer effects a waiver

of that defense.”).

Because Andes only asserts these two grounds for reversing the district

court, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.
#### ATHENEUM BOOK STORE, INC., a Florida corporation, its officers, employees and agents, Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-734.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 20, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3002 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3002

 To amend chapter 39 of title 38, United States Code, to increase the 
   automobile assistance allowance for certain disabled veterans and 
                      members of the Armed Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 6, 1993

  Mr. Slattery (by request) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend chapter 39 of title 38, United States Code, to increase the 
   automobile assistance allowance for certain disabled veterans and 
                      members of the Armed Forces.

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

SECTION 1. AUTOMOBILE ASSISTANCE ALLOWANCE.

    Section 3902(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``$5,500'' and inserting ``$7,500''.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                         CORPORATE INFORMATION          EXHIBIT 13.d


          Crown Central Petroleum Corporation is one of the
          largest independent refiners and  marketers of
          petroleum products in the United States.  The
          Company operates two high-conversion  refineries
          in Texas with a combined capacity of 152,000
          barrels per day.  Crown markets its refined
          products at 348 retail gasoline stations and
          convenience stores in seven Mid-Atlantic and
          Southeastern states.  Crown's wholesale operations
          extend from its Texas refineries into the
          Southeastern, Mid-Atlantic and Midwestern regions
          of the United States.
<PAGE>

          230
          By concentrating on its core business and
          maintaining a strong financial position, Crown is
          able to offer quality products to its customers
          and long-term value to its shareholders.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Richard A. Wisot, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Proliance
International, Inc.;

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(s) 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(s) 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 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: May 15, 2006                      /s/ Richard A. Wisot
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Richard A. Wisot
                                        Chief Financial Officer
```
#### Ben D. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emile WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4110.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Nov. 10, 1972.

Gerard F. Thomas, Jr., Natchitoches, for defendant-appellant.

Gahagan & Kelly by Russell E. Gahagan, Natchitoches, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before FRUGÉ, MILLER and DO-MENGEAUX, JJ.

ON MOTION TO REMAND

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appellee Ben D. Johnson moved to remand this case so that the record could be completed. Defendant appellant Emile Williams contends that the record is complete and objects to a remand.

LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2132 provides means for the correction of the trial record after the record is lodged with the appellate court. The purpose of this article is to assure that the record on appeal is correct, irrespective of why or by whose fault it is found to be inaccurate. In all cases, the record should represent the truth.

The case is remanded so that the trial court may determine whether or not the record is complete. If it is not complete, the trial court is to order it corrected and returned to this court. If the record is complete, it is to return the record.

Remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                     119,946
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              275,805
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                262,958
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           693,750
<PP&E>                                     593,336
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,162,263
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      844,598
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,245
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,162,263
<SALES>                                    824,603
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                      681,457
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              920,062
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,243
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (114,764)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (92,787)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (21,977)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (114,764)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1     **CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos.333-103071, 333-119862 and 333-132174) and the Registration Statement Form S-3 (No. 333-128211) ofour report dated December 7, 2006 with respect to the fiscal year 2006 consolidated financialstatements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Argon ST, Inc. andsubsidiaries included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30, 2006.Grant Thornton LLPMcLean, Virginia
#### The FLORIDA ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and Travelers Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Thomas REZAC and Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 43746.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 13, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 06627

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 06627\06627_Checklist_110810_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

06627\06627_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

06627\06627_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 06627\06627_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06627\06627_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06627\06627_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

06627\Certification Statement Plant ID 06627.pdf Plant certification statement

x 06627\Supplemental Documents\06627_A5-3 WB Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

06627\Supplemental Documents\06627_AEP ELGs ICR submittal letter 9-13-10.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

06627\Supplemental Documents\06627_AEP LBM A5-2 Aerial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### CITY PEST CONTROL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. William J. HORTON, Appellee.

No. S-81.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 5, 1973.

Rehearing Denied July 9, 1973.

Gary B. Tullis, of Ulmer, Murchison, Ashby & Ball, Jacksonville, for appellant.

J. Kennedy Hutcheson, Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TAJ M. COLLIER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-99

[April 30, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Thomas J. Coleman, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 06-004699-CF10D.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Logan T. Mohs, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Dale 

Surber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3091

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for allocations

of authorizations of budget authority to authorizing committees of the

House of Representatives and the Senate.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 15, 1993

Mr. SMITH of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Rules

A BILL

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide

for allocations of authorizations of budget authority to

authorizing committees of the House of Representatives

and the Senate.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ALLOCATIONS OF AUTHORIZATIONS TO COM4 MITTEES.

5 (a) ALLOCATIONS OF AUTHORIZATION LEVELS TO

6 HOUSE COMMITTEES.—

7 (1) Section 302(a)(1) of the Congressional

8 Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the
2

•HR 3091 IH

1 end the following new sentence: ‘‘That joint explana2 tory statement shall also include, for each fiscal year

3 covered by that concurrent resolution, an allocation

4 of appropriate levels of total authorizations of budg5 et authority for each committee of the House of

6 Representatives which has jurisdiction over laws,

7 bills, and resolutions providing such authorizations

8 of new budget authority .’’.

9 (2) Section 602(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional

10 Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the

11 end the following new sentence: ‘‘That joint explana12 tory statement shall also include, for each fiscal year

13 covered by that concurrent resolution, an allocation

14 of appropriate levels of total authorizations of budg15 et authority for each committee of the House of

16 Representatives which has jurisdiction over laws,

17 bills, and resolutions providing such authorizations

18 of new budget authority .’’.

19 (b) ALLOCATIONS OF AUTHORIZATION LEVELS TO

20 SENATE COMMITTEES.—

21 (1) Section 302(a)(2) of the Congressional

22 Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the

23 end the following new sentence: ‘‘That joint explana24 tory statement shall also include, for each fiscal year

25 covered by that concurrent resolution, an allocation
3

•HR 3091 IH

1 of appropriate levels of total authorizations of budg2 et authority for each committee of the Senate which

3 has jurisdiction over laws, bills, and resolutions pro4 viding such authorizations of new budget author5 ity.’’.

6 (2) Section 602(a)(2) of the Congressional

7 Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the

8 end the following new sentence: ‘‘That joint explana9 tory statement shall also include, for each fiscal year

10 covered by that concurrent resolution, an allocation

11 of appropriate levels of total authorizations of budg12 et authority for each committee of the Senate which

13 has jurisdiction over laws, bills, and resolutions pro14 viding such authorizations of new budget author15 ity.’’.

16 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

17 The amendments made by this Act shall be effective

18 for fiscal year 1995 and subsequent fiscal years.

Æ