alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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 FalconTarget, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

(a) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 

and 

(b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  

FalconTarget, Inc.

Date: October 29, 2004 

By:   /s/   Thomas Kirchner 

    Thomas Kirchner

    Chief Executive Officer 

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

* 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.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549



FORM 10-QSB





[xx]

QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 2005



Commission file Number:  0-50915



MCNAB CREEK GOLD CORP.

(Exact name of small business issuer as specified in its charter)



Nevada

(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)



98-0343710

(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)



Suite 1220, 789 West Pender Street

Vancouver, B.C.  V6C 1H2

(Address of principal executive offices)



(604)669-9330

(Issuer's telephone number)





State the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common equity, as of the latest practicable date:
964,200 common shares as at September 30, 2004



Transitional Small Business Disclosure Format (check one):  Yes [  ]    No [ X ]





---



(a)

Exhibits



1

Financial
Statements

31

Section 302 Certification of C.E.O. and
C.F.O.

32

Section 906 Certification



---









SIGNATURES



In accordance with the requirements of the Exchange Act, the registrant caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.



MCNAB CREEK GOLD CORP.





Dated:  February
15, 2005

Per: 
/s/Kenneth G. Townsend



Kenneth G. Townsend,

President, C.E.O.,
C.F.O.

Secretary and Director
#### STURM, RUGER & CO., INC., a Connecticut corporation, Appellant, v. Michael James DAY, Appellee. Michael James DAY, Cross-Appellant, v. STURM, RUGER & CO., INC., a Connecticut corporation, Cross-Appellee.

No. 3092.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

April 24, 1981.

*205Robert L. Richmond, Richmond, Wil-loughby & Willard, Anchorage, Kenneth P. Jacobus, Hughes, Thorsness, Gantz, Powell & Brundin, Anchorage, and Edward L. Lascher, Ventura, Cal. (in association), for appellant/cross-appellee.

H. Bixler Whiting, Whiting & Rosie, Fairbanks, for appellee/cross-appellant.

Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., CONNOR, and BURKE, JJ., and DIMOND, Senior Justice.

OPINION ON REHEARING

CONNOR, Justice.

Appellee has petitioned for further rehearing as to one question not addressed in our opinion on rehearing, *Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc.*v. *Day,*615 P.2d 621 (Alaska 1980), rehearing of 594 P.2d 38, and we have granted rehearing.

In awarding attorney’s fees at the close of this case, the superior court did not award any fee as to the punitive damage portion of the judgment, because the court believed that it was inappropriate to award an attorney’s fee as to punitive damages. In our opinion this was error.

In *Haskins v. Shelden,*558 P.2d 487 (Alaska 1976), we stated, in connection with the question of attorney’s fees as to a punitive damage award:

> “Civil Rule 82(a) provides a schedule of attorney’s fees which are to be allowed to the prevailing party as costs of litigation. Rule 82(a)(1) directs that the schedule will be adhered to ‘in fixing such fees for the party recovering *any*money judgment,’ ‘unless the court, in its discretion, otherwise directs....’” (emphasis in original).

558 P.2d at 495.

The trial court has broad discretion in determining the appropriate attorney’s fee. But it cannot arbitrarily deny attorney’s fees on a punitive damage award.1 If it departs from the schedule in Civil Rule 82, it must give reasons for its nonadherence to the schedule.

Therefore, as in *Haskins v. Shelden,*we direct that on remand the superior court should be guided by Civil Rule 82 in determining an attorney’s fee as to both compensatory and punitive damages.

REMANDED.

MATTHEWS, J., not participating.

1

. *See Cooper v. Carlson,*511 P.2d 1305, 1310 (Alaska 1973).

The importance of awarding attorney’s fees as to punitive damages is apparent when one considers torts such as defamation. Sometimes the actual damages are merely nominal, but the punitive damages are substantial, and serve to vindicate the plaintiffs reputation, as well as to deter defamatory behavior. In such a case it would be unreasonable to base an attorney’s fee award solely on the amount of nominal damages.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 5

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the States should adopt uniform

voting procedures to carry out the election of the President and Vice

President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas submitted the following concurrent resolution;

which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the States should

adopt uniform voting procedures to carry out the election

of the President and Vice President.

Whereas despite Federal efforts to increase uniformity in voting procedures for elections for Federal office, there remains much variation in such procedures among the

States;

Whereas a major goal of the National Voter Registration Act

of 1993 (commonly known as the ‘‘Motor-Voter Act’’)

was the standardization of voter registration procedures

for elections for Federal office to prevent voter fraud and

provide an accurate list of eligible voters;

Whereas under the provisions of the Uniformed and Overseas

Citizens Absentee Voting Act, absent uniformed services
2

•HCON 5 IH

voters and overseas voters can vote by absentee ballot in

elections for Federal office and, if a State does not provide an official State absentee ballot in response to a

timely request, can write in the names of candidates on

a Federal write-in absentee ballot;

Whereas in North Dakota and in some counties in Wisconsin,

individuals may vote without registering;

Whereas individuals in Idaho, New Hampshire, Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming may register to vote on

the day of the election;

Whereas the duration of the residency requirement for voter

registration varies from State to State from 1 to 30 days;

Whereas in 7 States disability or illness does not provide sufficient grounds for registering as an absentee voter, and

in 4 States disability or illness does not provide sufficient

grounds for voting as an absentee;

Whereas a few States allow any citizen who is out of the

United States or the State to register as an absentee

voter;

Whereas at least 7 different types of voting equipment are

used to carry out Presidential elections throughout the

United States, and the type of equipment used is determined on the county level; and

Whereas the opening time for polling places in Federal elections varies from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., and the closing

time for such polling places varies from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00

p.m.: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 States should adopt uniform procedures to carry out the
3

•HCON 5 IH

1 election of the President and Vice President, including

2 uniform procedures for voter registration, absentee voting,

3 early voting, and voting hours on the day of the election.

Æ
#### Myers *v.*Luzerne County, Appellant.

Argued May 29, 1918.

July 17, 1918:

Appeal, No. 6, Jan. T., 1918, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., June T., 1915, No. 375, for plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Harry Myers v. County of Luzerne.

Before Brown, C. J., Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling and Simpson, JJ.

Reversed.

Assumpsit on a contract of employment.

Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before Garman, J.

The facts appear in Moore v. Luzerne County, 262 Pa. 216.

The court entered judgment for plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was in entering judgment for plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

*Frank A. McGuigan,*with him *William S. McLean, Sr.,*for appellant.

*John T. Lenahan,*for appellee.

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Simpson,

The statement of claim and affidavits of defense in this case ráise the same questions as those in C. H. Moore v. Luzerne County, 262 Pa. 216, No. 5, January Term, 1918. For the reasons set forth in the opinion in that case, this day filed,

This judgment is reversed and a procedendo awarded.
# C_2004106EN.01005702.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/57

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 18 March 2004

in Case T-67/02: Léopold Radauer v Council of the European Union (1)

1

(Officials - Transfer of the flat-rate redemption value of retirement pension rights acquired in the course of professional activities prior to entry into the service of the Communities - Calculation of the years of pensionable service - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - General implementing provisions - Principle of equal treatment - Free movement of workers)

(2004/C 106/111)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-67/02: Léopold Radauer, an official of the Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats, against Council of the European Union (Agent: F. Anton) – application for annulment of the Council decision of 17 April 2001 calculating the applicant's years of pensionable service following transfer to the Community scheme of the flat-rate redemption value of the retirement pension rights which he had acquired under the Austrian scheme – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. García Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, delivered a judgment on 18 March 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| (1) | The application is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The application is dismissed.

| (2) | The parties shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The parties shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 97 of 20.04.02.

1

---
Exhibit 10.2


 


Execution Copy


 


Second Amendment to


International Seaways Ship Management LLC


Supplemental Executive Savings Plan


 


This Second Amendment (the “Amendment”),
dated as of June 3, 2022 hereby amends, effective as of the date hereof, the International Seaways Ship Management LLC Supplemental Savings
Plan, adopted by INSW and the Company on December 26, 2017 and amended on June 3, 2022 (the “INSW SERP”). Capitalized
terms used herein and not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the INSW SERP.


 


WHEREAS, under Section 15 of the INSW SERP,
the Board or a person designated by the Board may, in his, her or its sole discretion, terminate the INSW SERP for any reason or no reason
from time to time and at any time in such manner as it deems appropriate or desirable;


 


WHEREAS,
the Board has, in its sole and absolute discretion, deemed it appropriate and advisable to terminate the INSW SERP in accordance with
Section 15 therein; and


 


WHEREAS,
the Board has authorized Mr. James D. Small, in his sole and absolute discretion, to terminate the INSW SERP in accordance with Section
15 therein;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed that the INSW
SERP shall be terminated, effective the date hereof, and the balance of each Participant’s Supplemental Account shall be distributed
to such Participant in accordance with Section 21 of the INSW SERP.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 






    


     


    

 


IN WITNESS HEREOF, the undersigned is an officer
of INSW and of the Company who has been duly authorized by the Board to execute and deliver this Amendment for and on behalf of INSW and
the Company pursuant to Section 15 of the INSW SERP as of the date first stated above.


 


 


	 	INTERNATIONAL SEAWAYS, INC.
	 	 
	 	 
	 	By:	 /s/ James D. Small III
	 	Name:	 James D. Small III
	 	Title:	Chief Administrative Officer, Senior Vice President, Secrutary & General Counsel
	 	 
	 	 
	 	INTERNATIONAL SEAWAYS SHIP MANAGEMENT LLC.
	 	 
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ James D. Small III
	 	Name:	James D. Small III
	 	Title:	Chief Administrative Officer, Senior Vice President, Secrutary, General Counsel & Manager




 






    2
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Thomas Kirchner, certify that: 

  1) I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-QSB of FalconTarget, Inc.;  

  2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterlyreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;  

  3) Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;  

  4) The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:  

  a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based upon such evaluation; and  

  c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and  

  5) The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):  

  a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controlswhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation and  

  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

Date: November 15, 2007

By:   /s/   Thomas Kirchner 

    Thomas Kirchner

    Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit15.3 **

** **

**Consent of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the referenceto our firm under the caption "Statement by Experts" in this Shell Company Report on Form 20-F of Lavoro Limited and tothe incorporation by reference therein of our report dated December 5, 2022, with respect to the combined financial statements ofthe Lavoro Group, included in the Registration Statement (Form F-4 No. 333-267653) of Lavoro Limited, filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on January 31, 2023.

 

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG 

Auditores Independentes S/S Ltda.

 

 

São Paulo, Brazil

March 6, 2023
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 241 ) ll-K-(I)-5 4 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:56

AM Sheet 241 of 325P. 2

II-K-(I)-5 4
BACKGROUN D PAPER S FOR DISCUSSIO N O F COS T ALGORITHMS , INDUSTRIAL BOILE R NSPS . EEA , Inc . Januar y 16 , 1979 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(I)-5 4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

CITY OF BETHLEHEM

v.

ALVIN S. KANOFSKY, UNITED STATES 

OF AMERICA

PETITION OF: ALVIN S. KANOFSKY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 451 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
gwreex101executiveagreem






  CONFIDENTIAL  EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT  This Executive Agreement ("Agreement") is made as of the 3rd day of February 2022 (the  "Effective Date"), between Guidewire Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and  John Mullen (the "Executive").  In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and other good and  valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree  as follows:  1. Employment. a) Term. The Company desires to continue to employ the Executive, and the Executive desires to continue to be employed by the Company, pursuant to the terms of this  Agreement, until this Agreement is terminated by either party in accordance with the terms hereof.  The Executive's employment with the Company will be "at will," meaning that the Executive's  employment may be terminated by the Company or the Executive at any time and for any reason.  b) Position. The Executive will serve as the President and Chief Revenue Officer and will have such powers and duties as may from time to time be prescribed by the Chief Executive  Officer of the Company (the "CEO") or other authorized executive, provided that such duties are  consistent with the Executive's position. While the Executive renders services to the Company, the  Executive will not engage in any other employment, consulting or business activity that would create  a conflict of interest with the Company.  2. Compensation and Related Matters. (a) Base Salary. The Executive's current annual base salary is $500,000, subject to redetermination by the Board of Directors of the Company (the "Board of Directors") or  Compensation Committee. The annual base salary in effect at any given time is referred to herein as  "Base Salary." The Base Salary will be payable in a manner that is consistent with the Company's  usual payroll practices for senior executives.  (b) Incentive Compensation. The Executive will be eligible to be considered for annual cash incentive compensation as determined by the Board of Directors or Compensation  Committee from time to time. The Executive's current annual target bonus is 100% of Base Salary.  To earn incentive compensation, the Executive must be employed by the Company on the day such  incentive compensation is paid. The Bonus Plan may be revised at the discretion of the Company at  any time.  (c) Equity Grant. Subject to approval by the Company's Board of Directors, the Executive will be granted an award of Restricted Stock Units (the "RSUs") with a value equivalent to  $13,500,000 (the "New Hire Grant") under the Company's 2020 Stock Plan (the "2020 Plan").  The grant of RS Us will be subject to the terms and conditions of the 2020 Plan and the applicable RSU  award agreement as executed by the Executive and the Company (the "RSU Award Agreement"), the  terms and conditions of which shall be controlling. The precise number of RSUs granted will be  outlined in the RSU Award Agreement and will be calculated applying the Company's grant  conversion policy in effect on the grant date - currently the 90-day average closing share price of the  Exhibit 10.1
ACCEPTED 04-15-00417-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 12/31/2015 9:57:56 AM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK
In the Court of Criminal 

Appeals of Texas

══════════

No. WR-94,542-01

══════════

EX PARTE ALLEN MAURICE JOHNSON,

Applicant

═══════════════════════════════════════

On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

Cause No. 20508-B(1) in the 104th District Court

From Taylor County

═══════════════════════════════════════

YEARY, J., filed a concurring opinion.

Today the Court grants Applicant post-conviction habeas relief 

based on his claims of actual innocence and involuntary plea. I agree 

that Applicant is entitled to relief. I write separately to briefly express

my disagreement with the Court’s jurisprudence surrounding actual 

innocence.

I agree with the Court that Applicant has satisfied the burden 
JOHNSON – 2

established in Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1996). Where my thinking differs is that the Court declares Applicant to 

be “actually innocent” by virtue of meeting this standard alone. For 

reasons that I have expressed before, I disagree with the Court’s use of 

the term “actually innocent” when granting relief under Elizondo; 

simply satisfying the Elizondo burden is not enough to prove literal 

“actual innocence.” See Ex parte Cacy, 543 S.W.3d 802, 803 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2016) (Yeary, J., concurring) (“The Elizondo standard, on its face, 

does not really focus on innocence per se. It is, instead, an exceedingly

high burden by which an applicant must show that, if newly available 

evidence were added to the evidentiary mix, no reasonable jury would 

have found the State’s case to have been compelling enough to defeat 

the systemic presumption of innocence.”).

Still, I am persuaded that Applicant is, in fact, “actually innocent” 

in an “absolute sense,” as described by my concurring opinion in Ex parte 

Warfield, 618 S.W.3d 69, 74 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (Yeary, J., 

concurring). On that basis, I respectfully concur.

FILED: April 19, 2023

DO NOT PUBLISH