alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 

EXHIBIT A 
 TROY A. COOPER 

 

			
	Start Date:	  	February 9, 2016
		
	Employee:	  	Troy A. Cooper
		
	Position:	  	Chief Operating Officer of the Company
		
	Reporting Person:	  	Chief Executive Officer of the Company
		
	Base Salary:	  	$537,500
		
	2015 Bonus:	  	$750,000
		
	2015 Additional Bonus:	  	$1,100,000
		
	Target Bonus:	  	100% of Base Salary
		
	Prior Agreement:	  	Employment Agreement effective as of March 14, 2014, by and between the Company and Employee
		
	Sections of Prior Agreement that survive with respect to Equity Compensation
granted under the Prior Agreement:	  	Section 3(c)
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Albertico Cruz

, * From the 441 st District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. C R55110

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 260

- CR * January 26 , 20 2 3

The State of Texas

, * Per Curiam Memorand um Opinion

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 5, 2018)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 45191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19411]



[[Page 45189]]

Vol. 83

Wednesday,

No. 172

September 5, 2018

Part II





The President





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



Notice of August 31, 2018--Notice of Intention To Enter Into a Trade 
Agreement


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 45191]]

                Notice of August 31, 2018

                
Notice of Intention To Enter Into a Trade 
                Agreement

                Consistent with section 106(a)(1)(A) of the Bipartisan 
                Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act 
                of 2015 (Public Law 114-26, Title I) (the ``Act''), I 
                have notified the Congress of my intention to enter 
                into a trade agreement with Mexico--and with Canada if 
                it is willing, in a timely manner, to meet the high 
                standards for free, fair, and reciprocal trade 
                contained therein.

                Consistent with section 106(a)(1)(A) of the Act, this 
                notice shall be published in the Federal Register.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    August 31, 2018.

[FR Doc. 2018-19411
Filed 9-4-18; 11:15 am]
Billing code 3295-F8-P
Menu Related Topics: PRIA Fees 

# About Pesticide Registration Fees under PRIA FIFRA amendments passed by Congress in 2004 cr eated a registration service fee system for applications for specific pesticide registration , amended registration, and associated tolerance actions. The goals of this fee system are to: • create a more predictable evaluation proc ess for affected pesticide decisions, and • couple the collection of individual fees with specific decision review periods. The 2004 amendments are also known as the Pe sticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 (PRIA). 

## Related Information

• Pesticide Registration Manual (Blue Book) • PRIA Overview and History • Comparison of Features across PRIA 1, 2, and 3 PRIA fees have been re authorized twice, most recently by th e Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act (PRIA 3). This reauthorization expires September 30, 2017. View copies of PRIA legislation . PRIA established Section 33 of FIFRA. The amendments are refl ected in the current version: See FIFRA Section 33--PesticideRegistration Service Fees (also cited as U.S. Code Title 7, Chapter 6, Subchapter II, Section 136w-8) Actions subject to fees are categorized: • First by type of chemical: ◦ Conventional. ◦ Antimicrobial. ◦ Biopesticide. Page 1 of 2 About Pesticide Registration Fees under PRIA | Pesticide Registration Improvement Ext e ...

12 / 3 /201 5 http://www2.epa.gov/pri a -fees/about-pesticide -registratio n -fees-under -pri a◦ Inert ingredients. • Next by the type of action: ◦ New active ingredient. ◦ New use. ◦ Import and other tolerances. ◦ New products. ◦ Amendments. ◦ Miscellaneous. Under this system, each individual category corres ponds to a certain registration service fee and decision review period. The fees and decision review periods may change fr om one fiscal year to the next, and fees are periodically increased as prescribed by statute. Applicants s hould refer to the fee determination decision tree or fee table for assi stance in finding the appropriate PRIA category and fee for their submission. To determine whether an applicant quali fies for a fee waiver, see these pages:

• Small business fee waivers • Guidance on IR-4 fee exemptions • Exemptions for federal and state governments Fees and Applications describes where and how to pay fees and what to submit. 

## PRIA Legislation Pesticide Registration Improveme nt Act of 2003 (PRIA I) (PDF) (455 pp, 1.23 MB, About PDF ) (see pages 419-434) Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act of 2007 (PRIA 2) (PDF) (8 pp, 146.9 K, About PDF ) Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2012 (PRIA 3) (PDF) (81 pp, 337.64 K, About PDF )

Last updated on September 21, 2015 Page 2 of 2 About Pesticide Registration Fees under PRIA | Pesticide Registration Improvement Ext e ...

12 / 3 /201 5 http://www2.epa.gov/pri a -fees/about-pesticide -registratio n -fees-under -pri a
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              66
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    66
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,906
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              238
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,906
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   196
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30047

Summary Calendar

 

PETER LENYA MMATLOA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

U.S. MARSHAL, ET AL.,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(95-CV-1628)

 

May 17, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Peter Mmatloa appeals the district court's dismissal of his

habeas petition. Mmatloa does not contest the deportation order

entered against him on July 20, 1995. Rather, he contests the

alleged illegal detainer placed upon him from May 30, 1995 to June

28, 1995. Since Mmatloa is no longer being held pursuant to the

alleged illegal detainer, his petition is moot.

AFFIRMED.
#### Iris Martin, Appellant, v Waldbaum’s Supermarket, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), dated November 29, 1989, which denied her motion to remove the action from the Civil Court, Queens County, to the Supreme Court, Queens County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A motion to remove an action from the Civil Court to the Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR 325 (b) must be accompanied by a request for leave to amend the ad damnum clause of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) (McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 325:2, at 564). Here, the amount stated in the ad damnum clause was within the jurisdictional limits of the Civil Court, and no request for leave to amend the ad damnum clause was made. In the absence of an application to increase the ad damnum clause, the Supreme Court’s denial of removal was proper *(see, Francilion v Epstein,*144 AD2d 633, 633-634; *Huston v Rao,*74 AD2d 127, 130, 131; 1 Weinstein-*805Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 325.11; Siegel, NY Prac § 25). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
VI 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 70 

For the relief of Marcos Antonio Sanchez-Diaz. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 23 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 2013 

Mr. LEVIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Marcos Antonio Sanchez-Diaz. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, for the purposes of the Immigration and Na6 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Marcos Antonio San7 chez-Diaz shall be deemed to have been lawfully admitted 

8 to, and remained in, the United States, and shall be eligi9 ble for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully 

10 admitted for permanent residence under section 245 of the 

11 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) upon 

12 filing an application for such adjustment of status. 


smartinez on DSK6TPVN1PROD with 
2 

•S 70 IS

1 (b) APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Sub2 section (a) shall apply only if the application for adjust3 ment of status is filed with appropriate fees not later than 

4 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

5 (c) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.— 

6 Upon the granting of permanent resident status to Marcos 

7 Antonio Sanchez-Diaz, the Secretary of State shall in8 struct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current 

9 or next following fiscal year, the total number of immi10 grant visas that are made available to natives of the coun11 try of the birth of Marcos Antonio Sanchez-Diaz under 

12 section 202(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

13 (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPVN1PROD with
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL
                          EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with this third amendment to the Annual Report of BMB
Munai, Inc., on Form 10-KSB/A-3 for the year ended March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Boris Cherdabayev, Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


Date: June 16, 2006                                   /s/ Boris Cherdabayev
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Boris Cherdabayev,
                                                     Principal Executive Officer
EX-10.47



 Exhibit 10.47 

Amendments to Grants under the MeadWestvaco Corporation 2005 Performance Incentive Plan Amended and Restated Effective February 25, 2013 (2005
Performance Incentive Plan) 
 On January 27, 2014 the Compensation and Organization Development Committee of the Board of Directors amended the terms
and conditions for all outstanding equity and cash awards previously granted under the company’s 2005 Performance Incentive Plan to provide more favorable vesting terms upon termination of employment for any employee age fifty-five or older
with twenty or more years of service. In the case of stock options, there would be continued vesting of such awards, with the continued right to exercise such awards for five-years from termination of employment, but not exceeding the original ten
year term. In the case of performance-based restricted stock units or cash awards, there would be pro-rata vesting determined by multiplying the amount, if any, earned by attainment of the performance goals attached to such awards by a fraction, the
numerator of which is the number of completed full months from the award date to the termination of employment and the denominator of which is 36. In the case of service based restricted stock units, there would be pro rata vesting based on the date
of termination of employment in one-year increments from the date of grant and any remaining portion shall be forfeited.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017 (the "Report") of Garrison Capital Inc. (the "Registrant"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joseph Tansey, Chief Executive 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/ Joseph Tansey       |
|-------------------------|
| Joseph Tansey           |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| November 7, 2017        |
#### Steven Rosenberg, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Jeffrey Rosenberg, an Infant, Respondent, v Kissing Bridge, Appellant.

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Plaintiff’s motion to compel disclosure, insofar as it sought the results and conclusions of an investigation conducted by defense counsel, should have been denied. Supreme Court’s order, which precluded defendant from offering the testimony of any of its employees concerning the results or conclusions of their investigation, went far beyond the relief sought by plaintiff. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, McGowan, J.—Discovery.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Pine and Law-ton, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee for the Certificateholders of Banc of America Funding Corporation, Mortgage Pass

Through Certificates, Series 2005

- B,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 21

- 16566
D.C. No. 2:20

- cv - 01277

- GMN

- VCF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2024 * * Pasadena, California Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and MENDOZA and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges. Wells Fargo Bank , N.A. , as Trustee for the Certificateholders of Ban c of America Funding Corporation, Mortgage Pass

- Through Certificates, Series 2005

- B

* 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

APR 15 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 16566

( “ W ells Fargo ” ) , appeals from the district court’s order granting SFR Investment Pool 1, LLC’s (“SFR ” ) motion to dismiss. The district court granted the motion , concluding that the statute

- of

- limitations period began once the foreclosure sale occurred and that Wells Fargo’s quiet

- title claim was time barred. After Wells Fargo filed its appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court issued its opinion in U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Thunder Properties, Inc. , 503 P.3d 299 ( Nev. 2022) (“ Thunder Properties ”)

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ; review statute

- of

limitations dismissals de novo , Taylor v. Regents of Univ

. of Cal

. , 993 F.2d 710, 711 (9th Cir. 1993) ; vacate the district court’s order ; and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with Thunder Prop erties

. In Thunder Properties , the Nevada Supreme Court held that : ( 1 ) declaratory relief actions are not categorically exempt from statutes of limitations ; ( 2) actions to determine the validity of a lien are subject to a four

- year statute of limitations ; and ( 3) the statute of limitations is not triggered until the titleholder affirmatively repudiates the lien, which does not necessarily happen at a foreclosure sale. 503 P.3d at 303

– 07

. Relevant here , t he c ourt held that a “foreclosure sale, standing alone, is not sufficient to trigger” the statute

- of

- limitations period. Id. at 306

. T he district court , which decided SFR’s motion without the benefit of Thunder Properties , held that the statute of limitations period began after the foreclosure sale in 2012. Because t his determination is inconsistent with the3 21

- 16566

Nevada Supreme Court’s decision, we vacate the district court’s September 13,
2021 order , and we remand for further proceedings consistent with Thunder Prop erties

. VACATED and REMANDED

.
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.26

December 18, 1998



Mr. Larry Gerhard
Summit Design, Inc.
9305 S.W. Gemini Drive
Beaverton, OR  97008

RE:  Software OEM License Agreement between Summit Design, Inc. (SDI) and 
Credence Systems Corporation (CSC) dated July 11, 1997 ("OEM Agreement")

Dear Larry:

The OEM agreement provides for a maximum shipment of VTB licenses by SDI in 
each quarter.  CSC hereby requests the following change in the Schedule D 
License Fee and Payment:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
     Quarterly Maximum Shipments
                                     Current   Requested
                                     -------   ---------
<S>                                  <C>       <C>
     Q4 1998   Licenses at *            *          *

     Q1 1999   Licenses at *            *          *
     Q2 1999   Licenses at *            *          *
     Q3 1999   Licenses at *            *          *
     Q4 1999   Licenses at *            *          *
                                       ---        ---
                  Total                 *          *
                                       ---        ---
</TABLE>

CSC will authorize payment one day after shipment of licenses provided that 
SDI agrees that the OEM Agreement is thereby terminated with no restrictions 
on any subsequent use, sale, license or distribution of the VTB Software 
purchased by CSC under the OEM Agreement.

Sincerely,

/s/ Jerry Bruce

Jerry Bruce
Vice President, Treasurer and Corporate Controller
Credence Systems Corporation

Agreed:


/s/ Larry J. Gerhard
-------------------------------------
Larry J. Gerhard



* Certain information on this page has been omitted and filed separately with 
  the Commission.  Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to 
  the omitted portions.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 756 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 756

To allow funds under title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
    Act of 1965 to be used to provide training to school personnel 
             regarding how to recognize child sexual abuse.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 17, 2013

  Mrs. Feinstein (for herself and Mr. Blunt) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To allow funds under title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
    Act of 1965 to be used to provide training to school personnel 
             regarding how to recognize child sexual abuse.

    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 ``Helping Schools Protect Our Children 
Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. TRAINING TEACHERS TO RECOGNIZE CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE.

    (a) State Activities.--Section 2113(c) of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6613(c)) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(19) Providing training for all school personnel, 
        including teachers, principals, and pupil services personnel, 
        regarding how to recognize child sexual abuse.''.
    (b) Local Educational Agency Activities.--Section 2123(a) of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6623(a)) is 
amended by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
            ``(9) Providing training for all school personnel, 
        including teachers, principals, and pupil services personnel, 
        regarding how to recognize child sexual abuse.''.
    (c) Eligible Partnership Activities.--Section 2134(a) of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6634(a)) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``and'' after the 
        semicolon;
            (2) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) providing training for school personnel, including 
        teachers, principals, and pupil services personnel, regarding 
        how to recognize child sexual abuse.''.
                                 <all>
```