alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Letter Agreement between Environmental Power Corporation and Joseph E. Cresci



 Exhibit 10.1 
 [Letterhead of Environmental Power Corporation] 
 December 19, 2006 
 Mr. Joseph E. Cresci 
 c/ o Environmental Power Corporation 
 One Cate Street, 4th Floor

 Portsmouth, NH 03801 
 Dear Joe: 
 The purpose of this letter is to set forth our understanding regarding your compensation for consulting services rendered by you to Environmental Power Corporation (the
“Corporation”) since September 30, 2006, the date on which your Consulting Agreement, dated July 17, 2006 (the “Consulting Agreement”), expired, as well as compensation for services expected to be rendered by you
through December 31, 2006. 
 In consideration of your services in connection with the recently completed bond financing in Texas, as well as your
continued services in connection with certain legislative initiatives through the end of this year, the Corporation will pay you the following amounts: 
  

	 	•	 	$41,666.66 in respect of services rendered for the month of October 2006; 

  

	 	•	 	$30,000.00 in respect of services rendered for the month of November 2006; and 

  

	 	•	 	$25,000.00 in respect of services rendered for the month of December 2006. 

 These amounts will be paid to you in a lump sum on January 2, 2007 following the completion of your service through December 2006. 
 If the
foregoing accurately sets forth your understanding of the agreement between you and the Corporation with regard to the subject matter of this letter, please so indicate by executing a copy of this letter where indicated below and returning it to me.

  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	 /s/ Richard E. Kessel

	Richard E. Kessel
	President and Chief Executive Officer
	Environmental Power Corporation
	
	ACCEPTED:
	
	 /s/ Joseph E. Cresci

	Joseph E. Cresci

 Dated: December 19, 2006
N OT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________ No. 1 2

- 1211

________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. MAURICE PLUMMER , a/k/a Maurice Dion Williams

MAURICE PLUMMER, Appellant

________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Wes tern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Crimina l Action No. 2

- 0 5

- c r
- 0 0 336

- 00 1 ) District Judge: Honorable Terrence F. McVerry

________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L AR 34.1(a)

September 2 4 , 2013
Before: AMBRO , FISHER, and HARDIMAN , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 24, 2013 )

________________ OPINION

________________2

AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Maurice Plummer appeals from the District Court’s refusal to reconsider a sentence reduction relating to his crack cocaine conviction. For the following reasons,

w e summarily affirm.
Plummer was sentenced to 144 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess w ith the intent to distribute 5 0 grams or more of
cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He sought a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) following retroactive amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines
that lowered the Guidelines’ range for certain crack cocaine offenses

. T he Sentencing
Commission ’s commentary excluded from relief , however, individuals whose “applicable guideline range” was not lowered by the amendments , s ee U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. 1(A ) , which includes those sentenc ed as career offenders . Although Plummer was deemed a career offender at sentencing, the District Court granted a downward departure to a non

career offender Guidelines’ range ; on this basis, he asserted he was entitled to a reduced

sentence under § 3582 ( c)(2)

. 1
Plummer concedes on appeal that this argument is foreclosed by our recent
decision in United States v. Ware , 694 F.3d 527 (3d Cir. 2012) , in which we held that the “applicable guideline range” is calculated pri or to any variance or departure, and hence was not lowered by the amendments even where a defendant was sentenced to a non

career offender range due to a downward variance. Id. at 531

– 32

. Because Ware renders

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.3

Plummer ineligible for relief and further review of that case has been denied, no substantial question is presented on appeal. Accordingly, we s ummarily affirm the
District Court’s denial of P lummer’s request for a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) and his subsequent motion for reconsideration

. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d
Ci r. I.O.P. 10.6.
Exhibit 10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

2010 Compensation Arrangements for Named Executive Officers 

On March 2, 2010, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of General Dynamics Corporation (the company) approved the
2010 base salaries for the company’s named executive officers shown in the table below. The named executive officers listed in the table below reflect those individuals identified in the company’s 2010 Annual Proxy Statement, except for
(1) Nicholas D. Chabraja, Chairman of the Board and former Chief Executive Officer, who retired as chief executive officer on June 30, 2009, and (2) David A. Savner, former Senior Vice President and General Counsel, who retired from
the company on December 31, 2009. 
 The table below lists the 2010 annual base salary levels effective March 22,
2010. 
  

				
	Name and Principal Position	  	2010 Base
Salary
	 Jay L. Johnson
	  		
	 President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	1,400,000.00
	 L. Hugh Redd
	  		
	 Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	755,000.00
	 Gerard J. DeMuro
	  		
	 Executive Vice President, Information Systems and Technology
	  	$	660,000.00
	 Charles M. Hall
	  		
	 Executive Vice President, Combat Systems
	  	$	645,000.00

 In addition,
effective March 3, 2010, the Compensation Committee also approved the 2009 bonus payments for the named executive officers (including Messrs. Chabraja and Savner) which were previously disclosed in the company’s current report on Form 8-K,
filed with the Commission March 8, 2010.
* 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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 18, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10570

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HERMAN GEORGE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:02-CR-48-ALL

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

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Herman George appeals his guilty-plea conviction and

sentence for possession of firearms by an armed career criminal. 

See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e). George argues that the

district court abused its discretion in denying the Assistant

Federal Public Defender Chris A. Cooklin’s first motion to

withdraw as appointed counsel. A valid guilty plea waives any

nonjurisdictional defects leading to a conviction United States
No. 03-10570

-2-

v. Owens, 996 F.2d 59, 60 (5th Cir. 1993). The issue of the

district court’s denial of appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw

involves a purported nonjurisdictional defect waived by George’s

valid guilty plea. See id.

George also argues that the district court erred in denying

his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. A district court may

grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea before a defendant is

sentenced upon a showing by the defendant of “a fair and just

reason for requesting the withdrawal.” FED. R. CRIM. P.

11(d)(2)(B)(2003); United States v. Brewster, 137 F.3d 853, 857

(5th Cir. 1998) (citing former FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(e)); see also

United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984). The

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying George’s

motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See Brewster, 137 F.3d at

857-58.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.20  


December 7,
2006 


To
the Board of Directors of

Taliera Corporation: 


Gentlemen:



        The
undersigned previously subscribed for and agreed to purchase 500,000 Warrants ("Insider Warrants") at $1.20 per Insider Warrant, of
Taliera Corporation (the "Corporation") for an aggregate purchase price of $600,000 ("Purchase Price"),
pursuant to terms set forth in a Letter Agreement dated July 28, 2006 (the "Letter Agreement"). This agreement amends the Letter Agreement to
provide for the undersigned's agreement to purchase an additional 500,000 Insider Warrants in accordance with the same terms in the Letter Agreement and in lieu of a previous commitment to purchase
warrants of the Corporation in the open market. 


        The
undersigned hereby agrees to purchase an additional 500,000 Insider Warrants at $1.20 per Insider Warrant, for an aggregate purchase price of $600,000 all in accordance with the
terms of the Letter Agreement. In all other respects, the terms of the Letter Agreement remain in full force and effect. 



	

 	

 	
 	

Very truly yours,
	

 	

 	
 	

 	

 
	 	 	 	TALIERA HOLDINGS, LLC
	

 	

 	
 	

By:	

/s/  J. SMOKE WALLIN      
 J. Smoke Wallin, CEO
	

Agreed



TALIERA CORPORATION	
 	

 	

 
	

 	

 	
 	

 	

 
	By:	/s/  J. SMOKE WALLIN      
 J. Smoke Wallin, CEO	 	 	 
	

 	

 	
 	

 	

 
	MORGAN JOSEPH & CO. INC.	 	 	 
	

 	

 	
 	

 	

 
	By:	/s/  MICHAEL POWELL      
 Name: Michael Powell

Title: Managing Director
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

JOHN GALIZIA, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (WOODLOCH PINES, INC.), 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 542 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 24th day of November, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
#### Hatfield et al. *v.*Semans, Appellant. Garlow *v.*Semans, Appellant. Donley et al. *v.*Semans, Appellant. Garlow *v.*Semans, Appellant.

Argued Oct. 1,1917.

Appeals, Nos. 62, 63, 64, 65, Oct. T., 1917, by defendant, from judgments of C. P. Greene Co., June T., 1916, Nos. 29, 30, 31, 32, dismissing exceptions to sheriff’s sale.

Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Stewart, Frazer and Walling, JJ.

Affirmed.

Exceptions to sheriff’s sale. Before Bay, P. J.

Motions to quash appeals.

The court dismissed the exceptions. Defendants appealed.

*Error assigned*in each case was in dismissing the exceptions.

January 7, 1918:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Frazer,

The records in these cases raise the identical questions disposed of in the opinion in Donley v. Semans filed this day. For the reasons set forth in that opinion these appeals are quashed.
<PAGE 101>

                                                               EXHIBIT 23.1

                        INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

American Gaming & Entertainment, Ltd.:
Glen Rock, New Jersey


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
American Gaming & Entertainment, Ltd. on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 33-57194,
33-80714 and 33-87790) of our report dated March 17, 2000, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of American Gaming & Entertainment, Ltd. for the
year ended December 31, 1999.





/s/ Mintz Rosenfeld & Company LLC

Fairfield, New Jersey
March 29, 2000



10K Edgar final full.doc
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### International Trade Administration

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States.

Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be postmarked on or before March 20, 2012. Address written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 3720.

*Docket Number:*                     12-004.                     *Applicant:*                     Max Planck Florida Institute, 5353 Parkside Dr MC 19-RE, Jupiter, FL 33458.                     *Instrument:*                     Freeze Fracture/Freeze Etch device.                     *Manufacturer:*                     JEOL Ltd., Japan.                     *Intended Use:*                     The instrument will be used to reveal the two-dimensional localization of membrane proteins using freeze fracture replica immuno-gold labeling, including all kinds of receptors and channels. Because freeze-fracture replica immuno-gold labeling has a high sensitivity for the detection of the epitope of the target molecules, small numbers of receptors that would be easily missed by LM or by conventional immuno-EM can be revealed using this instrument in particular unknown subcellular locations.                     *Justification for Duty-Free Entry:*                     There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States.                     *Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs:*                     February 8, 2012.                

Dated: February 22, 2012.

Gregory Campbell,

Director, IA Subsidies Enforcement Office.

[FR Doc. 2012-4837 Filed 2-28-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 710 

To provide for exemptions from municipal advisor registration requirements. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 11, 2013 

Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. CARPER, Mr. MORAN, and Mr. 

JOHANNS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for exemptions from municipal advisor 

registration requirements. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Municipal Advisors Re5 lief Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BANK EXEMPTION FROM MUNICIPAL ADVISOR REG7 ISTRATION. 

8 Section 15B(e)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 

9 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o–4(e)(4)) is amended— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 710 IS

1 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘entity)’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘entity, or a person appointed to or 

3 volunteering on a board, commission, committee, or 

4 similar function of a municipal entity)’’; and 

5 (2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting after ‘‘in6 clude’’ the following: ‘‘a bank (as defined in section 

7 (3)(a)(6)) or an agency or branch of a foreign bank 

8 (as defined in paragraphs (1) and (3), respectively, 

9 of section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 

10 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101)),’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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





The undersigned hereby certifies, in
his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Befut International Co., Ltd. (the
“Company”), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his
knowledge:





(1)          
The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
December 31, 2009 (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.





Dated:  February
12, 2010





/s/
      Hongbo CaoName:
      Hongbo CaoPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer(principal
      executive officer)




This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
ORIGINAL TSCA SECTION 5(E) CONSENT

ORDER FOR PREMANUFACTURE NOTICE

(PMN) P-85-0680

EPA DOCKET EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0864

January 2013
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1405 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 291
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1405

                          [Report No. 111-141]

To redesignate the Longfellow National Historic Site, Massachusetts, as 
  the ``Longfellow House-Washington's Headquarters National Historic 
                                Site''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 7, 2009

   Mr. Reid (for Mr. Kennedy (for himself, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Kirk)) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

                             March 2, 2010

              Reported by Mr. Bingaman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To redesignate the Longfellow National Historic Site, Massachusetts, as 
  the ``Longfellow House-Washington's Headquarters National Historic 
                                Site''.

    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 ``Longfellow House-Washington's 
Headquarters National Historic Site Designation Act''.

SEC. 2. REDESIGNATION OF LONGFELLOW NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, 
              MASSACHUSETTS.

    (a) In General.--The Longfellow National Historic Site in 
Cambridge, Massachusetts, shall be known and designated as ``Longfellow 
House-Washington's Headquarters National Historic Site''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Longfellow National 
Historic Site shall be considered to be a reference to the ``Longfellow 
House-Washington's Headquarters National Historic Site''.
                                                       Calendar No. 291

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1405

                          [Report No. 111-141]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To redesignate the Longfellow National Historic Site, Massachusetts, as 
  the ``Longfellow House-Washington's Headquarters National Historic 
                                Site''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 2, 2010

                       Reported without amendment
```
Exhibit 99.1

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

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Diedrich Coffee, Inc. (the "Company"), for purposes of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



Dated:
September 30, 2002

| |  | /s/PHILIP G. HIRSCHPhilip G. Hirsch Chief
Executive Officer |  | 
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
| |  | /s/MATTHEW C. MCGUINNESSMatthew C. McGuinness               |  | 
| |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer       
| |  |                                                             |  | 

---

QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                         BORLAND INTERNATIONAL, INC.

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                      Name                                                 Jurisdiction of Incorporation
<S>                                                                        <C>
BORLAND INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) PTY, LTD.                                Australia
BORLAND CANADA SOFTWARE, INC.                                              Canada
BORLAND INTERNATIONAL (UK) LIMITED                                         United Kingdom
BORLAND INTERNATIONAL (FRANCE), SARL                                       France
BORLAND GMBH                                                               Germany
BORLAND (HONG KONG) LTD.                                                   Hong Kong
BORLAND COMPANY, LTD.                                                      Japan
BORLAND INTERNATIONAL, B.V.                                                Netherlands
BORLAND TECHNOLOGIES (SINGAPORE) PTE., LTD.                                Singapore
BORLAND TECHNOLOGY, INC.                                                   Delaware
OPEN ENVIRONMENT CORPORATION                                               Delaware
INTERBASE SOFTWARE CORPORATION                                             Delaware
OPEN ENVIRONMENT AUSTRALIA PTY., LTD.                                      Australia
OPEN ENVIRONMENT U.K., LTD.                                                United Kingdom
OPEN ENVIRONMENT EUROPE LTD.                                               United Kingdom
iO SOFTWARE GMBH                                                           Germany
VISIGENIC SOFTWARE, INC.                                                   Delaware
</TABLE>

                                       1