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

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 149

To correct the enrollment of H.R. 3244.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 11 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Mr. MACK submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was considered

and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To correct the enrollment of H.R. 3244.

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That the Clerk of the House of Representa3 tives, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 3244) to combat

4 trafficking of persons, especially into the sex trade, slav5 ery, and slavery-like conditions, in the United States and

6 countries around the world through prevention, through

7 prosecution and enforcement against traffickers, and

8 through protection and assistance to victims of trafficking,

9 shall make the following correction:

10 (1) In section 2002(a)(2)(A)(ii), strike ‘‘June 7,

11 1999,’’ and insert ‘‘December 13, 1999,’’.

Æ
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15736-15737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6442]

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

 COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List; Addition

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Addition to the Procurement List.

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

SUMMARY: This action adds a service to the Procurement List that will 
be provided by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or 
have other severe disabilities.

DATES: Effective Date: 4/16/2012.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Briscoe, Telephone: (703) 
603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Addition

    On 11/28/2011 (76 FR 72908-72909), the Committee for Purchase From 
People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed 
additions to the Procurement List.
    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning 
capability of qualified nonprofit agency to provide the service and 
impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the 
Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for 
procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. Chapter 85 and 41 
CFR 51-2.4.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors 
considered for this certification were:
    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, 
recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other 
than the small organization that will provide the service to the 
Government.
    2. The action will result in authorizing a small entity to provide 
the service to the Government.
    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would 
accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 
Chapter 85) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the 
Procurement List.

End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement 
List:

Service

Service Type/Location: Corrosion Repair Services, Marine Corps Base 
Hawaii (MCBH), Kaneohe Bay, HI.
NPA: Goodwill Contract Services of Hawaii, Inc., Honolulu, HI.
Contracting Activity: Regional Contracting Office, Marine Corps Base 
Hawaii,

[[Page 15737]]

Kaneohe Bay, HI.

Patricia Briscoe,
Deputy Director, Business Operations (Pricing and Information 
Management).
[FR Doc. 2012-6442 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
```
**Exhibit      32.1**

|   | 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                Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:                May 14, 2008 | /s/              Ban Jun Yang                                                                         |
|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               | Ban                Jun Yang, President, CEO and Director (Principal                Executive Officer) |

----
#### STATE ex rel. Michael D. KLAUSE v. Boliver BISHOP.

No. 87-KH-2181.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Klause, Michael D.; applying for remedial writs; Parish of Beauregard, 36th Judicial District Court, No. CR-78-87.

Denied. Moot. The Third Circuit has acted.
Exhibit
10.6


 


Supplemental
Agreement to Loan Agreement


 


Lender
(Party A):


 


Borrower
(Party B): Sichuan Wetouch Technology Co. Ltd.


 


Whereas
the parties entered into a Loan Agreement on ____ where Borrower borrowed money from Lender and Lender lent money to Borrower
(“Loan Agreement”);


 


NOW
THEREFORE, by entering into the Supplemental Agreement to Loan Agreement (“Supplemental Agreement”), the parties hereby
agree as follows:


 


1.
Party A had released the loan amount to Party B in accordance with the Loan Agreement, and Party B had used the loan amount for
the Party B’s business activities.


 


2.
The Loan Agreement stipulates that the creditor rights of Party A can be converted to the equity of the overseas holding company
established by Party B in Australia (hereinafter referred to as the Target Company). Both parties hereby confirm that Australia
Vtouch Technolody Co., Ltd. is the Target Company.


 


3.
Australia Vtouch Technolody Co., Ltd. issued _____ new shares of the Target Company to Party A in exchange for the
creditor rights of Party A under the Loan Agreement. The parties agree that the conversion shall be deemed as party B’s
repayment of the loan to Party A.


 


4.
The parties confirmed that Party A has acquired shares of Australia Vtouch Technolody Co., Ltd. and the loan has been paid
off in full and the parties are hereby released and discharged from all liabilities under the Loan Agreement.


 


5.
In case of any inconsistency between this Supplementary Agreement and the Loan Agreement, the provisions of this Supplementary
Agreement shall prevail.


 


6.
This Supplementary Agreement is in duplicate, with each party holding one copy.


 





	Party A ( signature )    	Party B ( seal )
	 	 
	 	Date:
Phantom Equity Program
                                  Exhibit 10.46

     Aearo  maintains a management  phantom  equity  program,  pursuant to which
specified members of management may be entitled to receive proceeds upon Aearo's
achievement  of specified  financial  goals  relating to the value of the common
equity.  In  general,  subject  to a  participant's  continued  employment,  the
participant's  right to receive  such  proceeds  will vest  immediately  upon an
outright  sale  of  the  majority  of  Aearo  by  existing   shareholders  or  a
recapitalization  which  results  in a  significant  distribution  to the common
equity (each, a "realization  event").  However,  the Board of Director of Aearo
has the right to accelerate  vesting for individual  participants.  The proceeds
under the management phantom equity program generally will be distributed upon a
realization event.
#### Jack GRIFFITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-0929.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 10, 1987.

Jack Griffith, pro se.

No appearance required by appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed, but without prejudice to the appellant to seek the same relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court.

HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
((£/et/t: Mtl Hcerk/

Cowct or Cr'^^l

p6 $o>c 1230% C<\pt7o(

j-ftfrfh /tusk* I*fly y^j/,

7-20'2air

se-iVCr

^wms>

•WLgygffi

rs fill , iJ / yMffite

f0,n :CH> S"p /£C'D /fa»</*1* F'"«

cc* /jtfw* 'fa Apr*** °» ChMs-

#0,7-1*,-/' >•*> ^ *£'#**>•

00 7- ///* "/>

e>l tJ>

[fall cPr<^ Ctt/»2 f/t
**Exhibit 10.32**

**DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS**

Radiant’s present policy is not to pay any cash compensation to itsdirectors, other than to the Audit Committee Chairman, who receives a $5,000 annual retainer. Each non-employee director receives an automatic grant of options to purchase 10,000 shares of Radiant’s common stock on the last business day of eachyear. Each non-employee director is also reimbursed for travel and other expenses incurred in connection with the performance of his or her duties. 

Inaddition, all new non-employee directors receive a one-time grant of an option to purchase 25,000 shares of Radiant’s common stock at an exercise price equal to the fair market value of such stock on the date of grant, which options vest over aperiod of three years. All such options expire, unless previously exercised or terminated, ten years from the date of grant. 

Radiant’s non-managementdirectors are also eligible to receive additional stock option grants under Radiant’s Non-Management Directors’ Stock Option Plan, in the discretion of Radiant’s Board of Directors.
7018 0040 0001 1393 2393
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Mark S. PONTIFF.

No. 86 KA 505.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 9, 1987.

Writ Denied; Stay Order Vacated March 20,1987.

Dorothy A. Pendergast, Asst. Dist. Atty., Louise Korns of Counsel; Office of the Dist. Atty., Gretna, for defendant.

Ferdinand J. Kleppner, Metairie, for appellant.

Before KLIEBERT, WICKER and GOTHARD, JJ.

GOTHARD, Judge.

Defendant was charged by bill of information with theft of property valued in *76excess of five hundred dollars, a felony-offense in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:67. On September 23, 1985, he entered a plea of guilty to the reduced charge of attempted theft of property valued in excess of five hundred dollars, a misdemeanor offense. LSA-R.S. 14:27; 14:67. The trial court thereafter ordered a pre-sentence report. On December 6, 1985, it sentenced defendant to a year in the Parish Prison, the maximum term provided by the statute. Execution of the sentence was suspended, however, and Pontiff was placed on probation for three years on condition that he pay a fine of $200.00, that he pay $112.50 in special costs within sixty days from his release from Parish Prison, and that he serve ninety days in Parish Prison with credit for time served. Defendant appealed that sentence to this Court, urging that the trial judge imposed an illegal and excessive sentence. This Court vacated defendant’s sentence on the ground that it was illegal, and remanded for resentencing. *See, State v. Pontiff,*490 So.2d 414 (La. App. 5 Cir.1986). Upon remand, a formal resentencing hearing was held on July 30, 1986, and defendant was then sentenced to ninety days in Parish Prison and fined $200 to be paid within sixty days after his release.

Defendant now urges that the trial judge failed to comply with the sentencing criteria of LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 and that the sentence is excessive and harsher than his original sentence.

A sentence will be remanded for further articulation only if a review indicates that it appears excessive. Mark Pontiff pled guilty to an offense which inadequately describes his conduct thereby obtaining a significant reduction in potential exposure to imprisonment.

Mark Pontiff was resentenced to ninety days imprisonment out of a possible one year. Since his previous sentence of ninety days in jail was additional to a suspended sentence with a lengthy probation, the resentencing of ninety days in jail is not excessive or harsh.

Although we find no merit in defendant’s appeal and affirm his resentenc-ing, we note, *ex proprio motu,*that the sentencing commitment incorrectly states the defendant’s term of imprisonment as was pronounced in open court and copied in the minute entry, which necessitates a remand, in order that the Department of Corrections does not hold the defendant under the terms of the erroneous commitment entry.

Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for correction of the sentencing commitment to conform with the sentence as stated in open court and copied in the minute entry. *See, State v. Cushman,*481 So.2d 1376 (La.App. 5 Cir.1986).

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED, WITH ORDER.
#### STATE ex rel. Kamurt BRIDGES v. Hilton BUTLER, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 87-KH-2649.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 12, 1988.

In re Bridges, Kamurt; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. *136“K”, No. 81-4432; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 87-KH-0664.

Out of time appeal is granted.
Document

Exhibit 10.1

American Equity Investment Life Holding Company
6000 Westown Parkway
West Des Moines, Iowa 50266
November 19, 2020
Anant Bhalla
2216 Sherwood Avenue
Charlotte, North Carolina 28207
Dear Anant:
You have performed at an exceptional level after taking on the role of Chief Executive Officer & President of American Equity Investment Life Holding Company (the “Company”), especially during a very challenging business environment in 2020. In recognition of your already significant contributions to the accelerated achievement of Company objectives in 2020, the Company is pleased to award you a 2020 Special Achievement Cash Bonus in accordance with the terms set forth below.
2020 Special Achievement Cash Bonus.  As soon as practicable following the date of this letter agreement (the “Letter Agreement”), the Company will pay to you a lump sum cash payment of $1,000,000. 
Repayment Obligation.  If prior to December 31, 2021, (i) your employment is terminated by the Company for Cause as referenced in the company’s regular incentive awards  or (ii) you voluntarily resign your employment from the Company except in the case of Good Reason (as defined in your Change in Control Agreement), you agree to reimburse and pay to the Company an amount equal to the 2020 Special Achievement Cash Bonus, in full within 30 days of such termination of employment or resignation. 
Taxes and Withholding/Deductions.  Taxes shall be withheld from the 2020 Special Achievement Cash Bonus on payment, including, without limitation, all applicable federal, state and local withholding tax obligations.  Further, the 2020 Special Achievement  Cash Bonus shall be subject to all applicable benefit plan deductions.
Continued Employment.  Nothing in this Letter Agreement shall be interpreted or construed to confer any employment right beyond the intended 2020 Special Achievement Cash Bonus. 
Entire Agreement.  This Letter Agreement sets forth the complete terms of the 2020 Special Achievement Cash Bonus and supersedes any and all other written or oral agreements with respect thereto. 
Governing Law.  This Letter Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of the State of Iowa, without regard to such State’s conflict of laws rules.










We appreciate your continued efforts on behalf of the Company.
						
	Sincerely,
		
	AMERICAN EQUITY INVESTMENT
	LIFE HOLDING COMPANY
		
	By:	/s/ Jennifer Bryant
	Name:	Jennifer Bryant

	Title:	Chief Human Resources Officer

		


I agree to the terms and conditions set forth in this Letter Agreement.
									
	/s/ Anant Bhalla		11/23/2020
	Anant Bhalla
		Date
			




2
Exhibit 32.1

CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Vector Intersect Security Acquisition Corp. (the ‘‘Company’’), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                                  |  |  |                 |  |  |                                                                               |
|----------------------------------|--|--|-----------------|--|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: August 20, 2007 |  |  | /s/ Yaron Eitan |
|                             |  |  | Name:           |  |  | Yaron Eitan                                                                   |
|                             |  |  | Title:          |  |  | Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive, Accounting and Financial Officer |

----
#### Wayne E. DENNIS, Appellant, v. Jeffrey G. PEARL, Appellee.

No. 86-580.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 6, 1987.

*345Laurie A. Beloff, Coral Gables, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Subsequent to the entry of a final judgment of foreclosure, there was a sale of the real property upon which the mortgage lien attached. Because of "waste,” the property at judicial sale failed to sell at a price sufficient to make the plaintiff whole. The plaintiff then sought a deficiency decree. The court took extensive testimony and determined that there was a deficiency of $50,000 and that both parties to this appeal were jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff in foreclosure for the deficiency. Their liability was based upon that certain mortgage given by the appellee, Jeffrey G. Pearl, to the plaintiff when he purchased the property from him and by the assumption of liability for said mortgage by the appellant, Wayne E. Dennis, when he purchased the property from Pearl. Thereafter, the trial court, determining the rights as between Pearl and Dennis, held that Pearl was entitled to indemnification from Dennis and could recover from Dennis the full amount of any sums Pearl paid in satisfaction of the deficiency judgment awarded the original plaintiff. This appeal is taken from the judgment of indemnification. We affirm.

Appellant urges procedural error in concluding the matter at a deficiency hearing. Even if such occurred, it would at most be harmless under the record in this case. *Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. United Services Automobile Association,*212 So.2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); *In Re Johnson,*157 Fla. 26, 24 So.2d 711 (1946); Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1985).

While there can be no question that Pearl and Dennis are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff in foreclosure, a different situation arises as between themselves. Dennis by assuming the plaintiffs mortgage when he purchased the property from Pearl was, as between Messrs Pearl and Dennis, the primary obligor and Pearl is only secondarily liable. *See Ackley v. Noggle,*97 Fla. 640, 121 So. 882 (1929); *Brownson v. Hannah,*93 Fla. 223, 111 So. 731 (1927); 37 Fla.Jur.2d, Mortgages and Deeds of Trust, Sec. 440. Therefore, the trial court correctly entered the order appealed.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2304 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2304

 To suspend temporarily the duty on Caprolactone-Butanediol Copolymers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Brown (for himself and Mr. Voinovich) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on Caprolactone-Butanediol Copolymers.

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

SECTION 1. CAPROLACTONE-BUTANEDIOL COPOLYMERS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      2-Oxepanone,        Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        polymer with 1,4-                                                  31/2011.......
                        butanediol (CAS
                        No. 31831-53-5)
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        3907.99.01)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
50339.

#### CULBREATH v. LIVINGSTON et al.

Submitted February 25, 1975

Decided April 8, 1975.

*Harris, Watkins, Taylor & Davis, Joseph H. Chambless,*for appellant.

*Jones, Cork, Miller & Benton, Wallace Miller, Jr.,*for appellees.

Stolz, Judge.

In this family-purpose-automobile action, the denial of the defendant father’s motion for summary judgment was not error. A genuine issue of material fact was raised by the showing that the car was purchased in 1971 by the defendant father and titled in the defendant father’s corporation’s name in Florida, the defendant’s residence, although it was "given” to the defendant son when he was less than 18 years old and in school. The son worked part time for said corporation for 2 years before the collision, but the car was never used for corporation business. The father paid for the first license tag, his corporation for subsequent ones. The son owned the liability insurance policy for the car, but the father paid about one half of the premiums. The son paid for most of the car’s maintenance, but the father bought tires for it once. The son lived with his mother, who was separated from his father. The son’s support consisted of the part-time job with his father’s corporation, an allowance from his father, discretionary support payments from his father to his mother, and his mother’s separate income. The defendant son was driving the car on a personal mission at the time of the collision in question. See *Baker v. State,*123 Ga. App. 394 (1) (181 SE2d 288); *Hexter v. Burgess,*52 Ga. App. 819 (5) (184 SE *769); Griffin v. Russell,*144 Ga. 275 (87 SE 10); *Ferguson v. Gurley,*218 Ga.276 (2) (127 SE2d 462); *Hubert v. Harpe,*181 Ga. 168 (182 SE 167); and *Hirsh v. Andrews,*81 Ga. App. 655, 658 (59 SE2d 552).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Deen, P. J., and Evans, J., concur.*