alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
April 11, 1997

Mr. Eiichi Isomura
Chairman
Isomura Sangyo Kaisha Ltd.

Dear Mr. Isomura:

This letter  will serve as a formal  request to extend the payment of the Series
A-1, Series A-2 and Series A-3 Bond for a period of one year.

Accordingly,  the payment of the Series A-1 bond  scheduled  for October 1, 1997
would be paid  October 1, 1998 and the payment of the Series A-1 bond  scheduled
for October 1, 1998 would be paid October 1, 1999.

The payment of the Series A-2 bond scheduled for December 16, 1997 would be paid
December 16, 1998 and the payment of the Series A-2 bond  scheduled for December
16, 1998 would be paid December 16, 1999.

The payment of the Series A-3 bond scheduled for December 16, 1998 would be paid
December 16, 1999.

All other terms of the bonds, including interest would remain unchanged.

In the event that  Marker  International  shall  complete an  additional  equity
offering or  preferred  stock  offering  during the  calendar  year 1997 or 1998
proceeds  from the  offering  would be used to repay the bonds  according to the
original scheduled payment terms.

If you are in agreement to this  extension  please sign this letter in the space
provided below.

Sincerely,

/s/Brad L. Stewart
Brad L. Stewart
Executive Vice President
Chief Operating Officer
Marker International

  Agreed to: /s/Eiichi Isomura                 Agreed to: /s/Brad L. Stewart
            Eiichi Isomura                               Brad L. Stewart
            Isomura Sangyo Kaisha Ltd                    Marker International
            Date: April 11, 1997                         Date: April 11, 1997
#### Sherry Denise MARTIN, Petitioner, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent.

No. 90SC747.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

March 11, 1991.

David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Jaydee K. Bachman, Deputy State Public Defender, Greeley, for petitioner.

Gale A. Norton, Atty. Gen., Timothy M. Tymkovich, Sol. Gen., Robert M. Russel, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent.

ORDER OF COURT AND MANDATE

Upon consideration of the Record on Appeal, together with briefs filed herein,

*388IT IS THIS DAY ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and this case is remanded to said court for reconsideration in light of *People v. Wright,*804 P.2d 866 (Colo.1991).

NOW THEREFORE, this cause is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings in conformance with the judgment of this Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2315

ANGELA AYRES; STEPHAN AYRES,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, as 

Trustee for the registered holders of Salomon Brothers Mortgage Securities VII, 

Inc., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Services 2001-2,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP; SALOMON BROTHERS MORTGAGE 

SECURITIES VII, INC., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Services 2001-2; 

SALOMON SMITH BARNEY, INCORPORATED; SALOMON SMITH 

BARNEY HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, 

INCORPORATED, formerly known as Salomon Brothers Realty Corp; JP 

MORGAN CHASE BANK, INCORPORATED; CITIBANK,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Catherine C. Blake, District Judge, and J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (8:13-

cv-01597-CCB)

Submitted: March 28, 2018 Decided: May 4, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angela Ayres, Stephan Ayres, Appellants Pro Se. Kelly K. Bogue, Alexander D. Bono, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Laurie Beth Goon, DUANE MORRIS, LLP, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Angela Ayres and Stephan Ayres appeal the district court’s order granting 

summary judgment in favor of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, and Bank of New York 

Mellon, in their action asserting claims related to mortgage fraud. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the 

district court. Ayres v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 8:13-cv-01597-CCB (D. Md. 

Nov. 9, 2016; Oct. 24, 2017). 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
NPO-10K-12.31.2013EX10.34








Exhibit 10.34


Summary of Director and Executive Officer Compensation Arrangements


In addition to the compensation arrangements filed as other exhibits to this annual report, EnPro Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) has the following compensation arrangements with its directors and named executive officers.


Compensation Arrangements for Directors


The Company has an arrangement to pay non-employee members of the Company’s board of directors compensation for their service on the board.  Effective for 2014, each non-employee member of the Company’s board of directors receives an annual retainer of $165,000, $75,000 of which is paid in cash and $90,000 of which is paid in phantom shares of our common stock upon the director’s termination of service as a director.  The non-executive chairman of the board receives an additional quarterly fee of $11,875 for his service in that capacity and for his service as chairman of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, the chairman of the Audit and Risk Management Committee receives an additional annual fee of $15,000, and the chairman of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee receives an annual fee of $12,000.  


Compensation Arrangements for Named Executive Officers


The Company’s chief executive officer and its other most highly compensated executive officers based on 2013 base salaries and bonuses (such five individuals, the “named executive officers”), are all “at-will” employees who serve at the pleasure of the board of directors.  The board of directors sets the annual base salary for each of the named executive officers and has the discretion to change the salary of any of the officers at any time.  Effective for 2014, the annual base salaries for the named executive officers are as follows:
	
		
	Named Executive Officer
	Base Salary

	Stephen E. Macadam
	$850,000

	Alexander W. Pease
	$405,600

	Dale A. Herold
	$355,300

	Kenneth D. Walker
	$336,000
#### Silverite Construction Company, Inc., Appellant, v Facilities Development Corporation, Respondent.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Hughes, J.), entered September 20, 1990 in Albany County, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, *inter alia,*dismissing defendant’s third affirmative defense.

Plaintiff and defendant contracted to have the former construct the Dutchess County Jail and Sheriffs Department project in the City of Poughkeepsie. Contractual disputes arose between the parties and plaintiff commenced this action claiming defendant’s breach of their contract. Defendant submitted an answer which included the affirmative defense that it had been released from all contractual claims because of plaintiffs failure to timely file a notice of claim after defendant mailed the final payment check. Plaintiff subsequently moved for, *inter alia,*summary judgment dismissing the third affirmative defense, alleging that no final payment by defendant had been made. Supreme Court denied the motion and this appeal by plaintiff followed.

We affirm. The sole issue herein is the existence of factual questions regarding whether plaintiff received sufficient notice that payment tendered by defendant constituted final payment due under the construction contract such as to effectively release defendant from any claim by plaintiff made thereunder *(see, Brandt Corp. v City of New York,*14 NY2d 217; *Buffalo Elec. Co. v State of New York,*14 NY2d 453).

The record demonstrates that plaintiff twice requested "final payment” on the contract in the amount of $123,256.17. Defendant thereafter sent plaintiff a check for $48,256.17, which plaintiff promptly deposited. The record also demonstrates that plaintiff sought and received the full remainder of securities posted for the project. In support of its motion, plaintiff argued that it first learned that defendant considered the $48,256.17 to be final upon defendant’s asserting same in its answer to this lawsuit. In opposition, defendant submitted the affidavit of one of its employees stating that it notified plaintiff that $75,000 of its request for final payment was being deducted as liquidated damages resulting in what defendant now claims was a final payment of $48,256.17. In our view, defendant has raised sufficient questions of fact to defeat plaintiffs motion *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557). We find that issues have been raised as to whether *923the circumstances as presented in the record demonstrate that plaintiff was aware that the check for $48,256.17 might be a final payment *(cf., Dalrymple Gravel & Contr. Co. v State of New York,*23 AD2d 418, 420, *affd*19 NY2d 644), particularly in light of defendant’s claim that it notified plaintiff of its deduction of $75,000 from plaintiff’s final payment request of $123,256.17.

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

         As   independent   public   accountants,   we  hereby  consent  to  the
incorporation  of our report  dated  February  11, 1999  (except with respect to
matters discussed in Note 1, as to which the date is March 18, 1999) included in
this form 10-K, into the Company's  previously filed Registration  Statements on
Form S-8 (No. 33-94256 and No. 333-25397) of the Rock Bottom  Restaurants,  Inc.
Non-Employee  Directors'  Stock  Option  Plan dated June 3, 1994 and Rock Bottom
Restaurants, Inc. Equity Incentive Plan dated June 3, 1994.

                                            /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Denver, Colorado,
     March 26, 1999.
a50803406_ex109.htm


Exhibit 10.9


 




FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This First Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (this “First Amendment”) is entered into effective as of January 1, 2014, by and between B/E Aerospace, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Werner Lieberherr (the “Executive”).




 




RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated July 29, 2013 (the “Amended and Restated Agreement”);







WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company desire to amend the Amended and Restated Agreement; and







WHEREAS, except as amended by this First Amendment, the Amended and Restated Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.







NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually understood and agreed by and between the Executive and the Company that the Amended and Restated Agreement shall be amended as follows:







FIRST AMENDMENT







Section 3 of the Amended and Restated Agreement, the reference to “Chief Operating Officer” is replaced by “Co-Chief Executive Officer” and the reference to “Chief Executive Officer of the Company, his designee, or the” is hereby deleted.







Sub-Section 4(a) of the Amended and Restated Agreement, the Salary is changed to $940,000.00 per annum.







Sub-Section 4(g) of the Amended and Restated Agreement, the following sentence is inserted after the first sentence:







“The Company will make a tax deferred monthly contribution to the SERP on behalf of the Executive equal to seven-and-one-half percent (7.5%) of the monthly amount of the Salary (1/12 of the Salary) in effect as of the date of contribution.”







Sub-Section 5(c) of the Amended and Restated Agreement, the references to “Chief Executive Officer” are replaced with “Board.”







Sub-Section 5(d)(ii) of the Amended and Restated Agreement, the references to “Chief Executive Officer or,” and the “by the Chief Executive Officer” are hereby deleted.







Section 8 of the Amended and Restated Agreement, the reference to “Chief Executive Officer” is replaced with “Board of Directors.”







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto execute this First Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement as of the date first written above.


 


 




	
EXECUTIVE:

	 	COMPANY:	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
/s/ Werner Lieberherr   

	 	B/E AEROSPACE, INC.	 
	
Werner Lieberherr

	 	By:	
/s/ Thomas P. McCaffrey

	 
	

Date: 1/4/14



	 	Name:	
Thomas P. McCaffrey

	 
	
 

	 	Title:	
1/4/14
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Parker, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), imposed December 5, 1988, the sentence being an indeterminate term of 5 to 10 years impris*698onment upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, after a plea of guilty.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

We find that the defendant was properly sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement *(see, People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816), which was predicated upon his not being arrested until his scheduled sentencing, appearing for the sentencing as scheduled, and cooperating with the Probation Department. Thereafter he was arrested twice, for grand larceny in the fourth degree and for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and he missed three sentencing dates— twice because he was incarcerated on new charges, and once because he was allegedly unaware of the adjourned sentencing date. He therefore violated the express conditions of the plea agreement, and the court properly imposed an enhanced sentence *(see, People v Selikoff, 35*NY2d 227, *cert denied*419 US 1122; *People v Headley,*150 AD2d 490; *People v Sharlow,*116 AD2d 603; *People v McDaniels,*111 AD2d 876, 877). The fact that the proceedings with respect to the new charges were adjourned in contemplation of dismissal does not alter this result, as those new charges had not been finally dismissed as of the date of the defendant’s sentencing *(see,*CPL 170.55 [2], [7]), and an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal is not an adjudication on the merits *(see, Hollender v Trump Vil. Coop,*58 NY2d 420). We further note that, although the defendant was encouraged at the sentencing proceeding to explain his arrests as well as why he had not inquired as to his new sentencing date, the defendant failed to proffer any credible explanation *(cf, People v Kihm,*143 AD2d 199). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
# National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month, 2018

During National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month, we reaffirm our commitment to addressing the stigma of addiction and take the opportunity to remind all Americans that recovery is possible. We stand with those who are seeking treatment and provide our steadfast support to all who are suffering from and fighting addiction.

Addiction to alcohol and other drugs affects millions of Americans. We must aggressively work to end this crisis, which endangers the safety, security, and well-being of all Americans. Addiction threatens everything that is great about our country—it shatters relationships between family members, replaces self-sufficiency with dependency, depletes our workforce of talent, and riddles communities with violence and disorder. We cannot stand idle and allow those we love to suffer from alcohol or drug addiction; we must be leaders and help guide our friends and neighbors to live drug-free.

Every American has a role to play in stopping alcohol misuse and illicit drug use and in addressing their consequences. I am committed to taking action to keep drugs from pouring into our country and to help those who are affected by them. In March, I announced an Administration-wide Initiative to Stop Opioid Abuse and Reduce Drug Supply and Demand. The Initiative is designed to reduce the demand for drugs through education, awareness, and prevention of opioid overprescription; expand access to evidence-based treatment and recovery support services; and cut off the flow of illicit drugs across our borders and throughout American communities. Further, my Administration has worked with the Congress to secure more than $6 billion in new funding to help combat the drug abuse and opioid epidemic through prevention, treatment and recovery, interdiction, and law enforcement efforts.

This month, we express our gratitude to our Nation's first responders, healthcare providers, and all family, friends, and advocates striving against alcohol and drug addiction. We celebrate the millions of Americans who are in recovery and who contribute every day to our efforts to stop drug use and addiction. Their experiences and persistence reinforce the value and importance of remaining hopeful and resilient when faced with grave challenges. Finally, let us encourage all Americans who struggle with addiction to realize that recovery is possible.

NOW, THERFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 2018 as National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirty-first day of August, in the year of our Lord two thousand eighteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-third.

[FR Doc. 2018-19506

Billing code 3295-F8-P
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Spectrian Corporation:

We consent to incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statements (Nos.
033-83832,  333-01046,  333-06385,  333-25435,  333-38561, 333-49081, 333-53079,
333-59905, 333-61085, and 333-84827, on Form S-8 of Spectrian Corporation of our
report  dated April 29,  1999,  relating to the  consolidated  balance  sheet of
Spectrian  Corporation  and  subsidiaries  as of March 31, 1999, and the related
consolidated statements of operations,  stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the  two-year  period  ended March 31,  1999,  which report
appears  in the  March  31,  1999  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-K  of  Spectrian
Corporation.


                                                                    /s/ KPMG LLP

Mountain View, California
June 29, 2000
Exhibit
32.1



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Canbiola, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Marco Alfonsi, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.



|Date:
    May 23, 2019 | By: | /s/
    Marco Alfonsi                                                                         
|---------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |     | Marco
                                         Alfonsi
        Chief
        Executive Officer
|                       |     | (Principal
    Executive Officer)                                                             



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Test Type Report # Test System Comments Results1-hr LC50 screenDupont26135Rat, wholebodyNot GLP;NotGuidelineThe test substance male rat, whole-body inhalation 1-hr LC50 was greater than 24,000ppm as determined in an acute inhalation screen.4-hr LC50DuPont17743-721Rat, nose-onlyGLP;GuidelineThe test substance male and female rat, nose-only inhalation 4-hr LC50 is between25,000 and 50,000 ppm. The mortality was 1/5 at the 25,000 ppm exposure level andthe 50,000 ppm exposure was terminated due to death early in the exposure and severeclinical signs. The study director believed that the animals would have died if theexposure to 50,000 ppm continuted. Animals recovered quickly upon termination ofthe exposure. No adverse effects were observed at the 14,600 ppm exposure level.Cardiac sensitizationDuPont17743-1522DogGLP;StandardprotocolThe test substance cardiac sensitization no-observed-adverse-effect level NOAEL inepinephrine challenged dogs was 70,000 ppm. Higher concentrations could not betested due to the presence of clinical effects.Bacterial reverse mutation assay (Ames)DuPont17743-501BacteriaGLP;GuidelineThe test substance was not mutagenic in the Bacterial Reverse Mutation Assay (Ames)test usingSalmonellastrains TA98, TA100, TA1535, and TA1537 and E. coli strainWP2uvrA with and without S9 activation.In vitro chromosome aberrationDuPont17743-546HumanlymphocytesGLP;GuidelineThe test substance did not produce structural or numerical chromosome aberrations inanin vitromammalian chromosome aberration test using human peripheral bloodlymphocytes either in the presence or absence of S9-activated test systems.Pilot study for 4-hr LC50DuPont19179-700RatNot GLP,NotGuidelineAn inhalation 4-hr LC50 study was scheduled to be conducted in male rats. A pilotexposure was conducted to determine appropriate design concentrations for the LC50study. The exposure chamber atmosphere reached a peak concentration of 33,200ppm 10 minutes after the test substance vapor flow was started. During the first 5minutes of the exposure, the animals displayed a normal startle response however theiractivity level decreased. As the exposure proceeded, the animals began to showtremors and convulsions. By the time the chamber concentration reached 33,200 ppm(~10 minutes), the muscle spasms and convulsions were severe, and the study wasterminated at that point.Completed Studies CAS RN 66711-86-2 - submitted with the PMN