alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-(4).(c)



 AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 

WITHDRAWAL CHARGE WAIVER ENDORSEMENT 

Notwithstanding any provision in the Contract to the contrary, this Endorsement becomes a part of the Contract to which it is attached. Should
any provision in this Endorsement conflict with the Contract, the provisions of this Endorsement will prevail. 
 Terms not defined in this
Endorsement shall have the same meaning given to them in the Contract. All other terms and conditions of the Contract remain unchanged. 

The Withdrawal Charge and Penalty Free Withdrawal sections are deleted in their entirety. All references to Withdrawal Charges and Penalty
Free Withdrawals in the Contract are hereby deleted and are not applicable with the use of this Endorsement. Therefore, no Withdrawal Charges are deducted when this Endorsement is attached. 

The definition of “WITHDRAWAL(S)” is replaced by the following: “Withdrawals are any amount(s) withdrawn by the Owner
from the Contract Value.” 
 The section titled “SYSTEMATIC WITHDRAWAL PROGRAM” under Withdrawal Provisions is
replaced by the following: “Prior to the Annuity Date, You may elect to participate in a Systematic Withdrawal Program by informing Us at Our Annuity Service Center. The Systematic Withdrawal Program allows You to make automatic Withdrawals
from Your Contract monthly, quarterly, semiannually or annually. The Minimum Systematic Withdrawal Amount is shown on the Contract Data Page. You may terminate Your participation in the Systematic Withdrawal Program at any time by sending Us a
Written request.” 
 The section titled “OPTIONS 5 & 5v - FIXED PAYMENTS FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD CERTAIN” under
Annuity Income Payment Options is replaced by the following: “Payments payable to the Payee for any specified period of time for five (5) years or more, but not exceeding thirty (30) years, as selected at the time of Annuitization.
The selection must be made for full twelve month periods. In the event of death of the Annuitant during the specified period of time, any remaining Annuity Income Payments will be continued to the Beneficiary. If the Annuitant dies after the end of
the specific period of time, no further Annuity Income Payments will be made. If Variable Annuity Income Payments are elected under this Annuity Income Payment Option, any remaining guaranteed Variable Annuity Income Payments may be redeemed for a
discounted value determined by Us.” 
 Signed for the Company to be effective as of the Contract Date. 

 

							
	 



 
	  	 




	  	 




	 	 



 



  
 AGE-8038 (1/16)
Certificates Issued Worksheet

01. From: 02. To: Export Certification Specialist 

03. Date 04. Applicant 05. Certificate Number 06. ACO Error

1. YES NO

2. YES NO

3. YES NO

4. YES NO

5. YES NO

6. YES NO

7. YES NO

8. YES NO

9. YES NO

10. YES NO

11. YES NO

12. YES NO

13. YES NO

14. YES NO

15. YES NO

16. YES NO

17. YES NO

18. YES NO

19. YES NO

20. YES NO

21. YES NO

22. YES NO

23. YES NO

24. YES NO

25. YES NO

26. YES NO

27. YES NO

28. YES NO

29. YES NO

30. YES NO

31. YES NO

32. YES NO

33. YES NO

34. YES NO

35. YES NO

 ___ of ___

SENT BY (SIGNATURE)

 

PRINTED NAME

TITLE 
Certificates Issued Worksheet Instructions 

Block 1– Enter the State or County name and address. 

Block 2 – Enter the Export Certification Specialist (ECS) that is responsible for your 

duty station. The address listed in this block will be used to remit the worksheet to an 

ECS for verification. 

Block 3 – Enter the date the export certificate was issued. 

Block 4 – Enter the name of the applicant. In many cases, the applicant and exporter 

are the same. Enter the name of the person who actually paid for the certificate, not 

necessarily the exporter listed on the certificate. 

Block 5 – Enter the export certificate number. 

Block 6 – Indicate if the export certificate was issued to replace a previously issued 

certificate due to an error by the certifying official.
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Report Signs of Citrus Disease

Last Modified: 

Print

IS YOUR CITRUS SICK?

By reporting signs of citrus disease, you’re helping save our citrus! The

symptom checklist and corresponding photos below will help you identify the key

symptoms of a plant infected by citrus greening, citrus canker, citrus black spot and

sweet orange scab.

If you think you have identified an infected plant, report it immediately. To avoid

spreading the disease, do not move your plant. Just fill out the form below or call

your USDA State Plant Health Director’s office.

If you are younger than 18 years of age, please ask a parent, guardian or trusted

adult to help you submit your report.

Thanks again for helping stop the spread of citrus disease!

View our privacy policy

REPORT FORM

Name 

Email 

Report It 
Phone 

City/Town 

State/Province - Select - ▾

ZIP/Postal Code 

Location 

Please describe the location. Try to be specific: i.e. cross streets, trees in your

yard, neighborhood, etc.

Select all the signs of symptoms that you have identified.

Citrus Greening

▾

Citrus Canker

▾

Citrus Black Spot

▾

Sweet Orange Scab

▾

Upload your photo 

Submit up to two photos of the citrus disease symptoms you found.  Acceptable

file types: png, jpg, jpeg.  File size limit 2MB. 

Maximum 2 files.

2 MB limit.

Allowed types: jpg, jpeg, png.

Choose

a

file Upload

Choose Your Symptoms 
Information message

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a valid OMB control number.  The valid OMB control number for

this information collection is 0579-0311.  The time required to complete this

information collection is estimated to average .083 hours per response, including the

time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of

information.

OMB APPROVED

0579–0311

Submit Report
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 932 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 932

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to 
            third-party charges on consumer telephone bills.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 29, 2016

Ms. Schakowsky (for herself, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. 
 Honda, and Mrs. Bustos) submitted the following resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to 
            third-party charges on consumer telephone bills.

Whereas telephone companies are required to permit third parties to bill for 
        services on a consumer's monthly telephone bill in certain 
        circumstances;
Whereas ``cramming'' is the act of placing unauthorized charges on a wireline, 
        wireless, or bundled services telephone bill of a consumer;
Whereas the Federal Communications Commission estimates that cramming has harmed 
        tens of millions of people in the United States; and
Whereas existing protections against cramming have not prevented harm to 
        consumers: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
protections against cramming should be improved and consumers should be 
empowered to stop unwanted third-party charges on their telephone 
bills.
                                 <all>
```
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 32 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Citizens’ 

Stamp Advisory Committee, as an entity of the United States Postal 

Service, should issue a commemorative stamp in honor of the holiday 

of Diwali. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 14, 2015 

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York (for herself, Mr. HONDA, Ms. 

GABBARD, Mr. BERA, and Ms. MENG) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee, as an entity 

of the United States Postal Service, should issue a commemorative stamp in honor of the holiday of Diwali. 

Whereas Diwali, also referred to as the ‘‘festival of lights’’, 

is an Indian holiday that also marks the beginning of the 

Hindu New Year; 

Whereas Diwali celebrates the triumph of good over evil, the 

awareness of one’s inner light, the dispelling of ignorance, and bringing peace and joy through the awakening 

gained from this higher knowledge; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 32 IH 

Whereas the holiday of Diwali is observed in America, and 

across the globe, by Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, 

and Buddhists; 

Whereas as one of the world’s oldest religious holidays, 

Diwali serves not only as a time for celebration, but also 

as a time for communities and families to come together 

in spiritual enlightenment; 

Whereas the practice of Diwali has survived political, economic and social changes throughout history, while always carrying the universal symbolism of the victory of 

light, goodness, knowledge, and truth; 

Whereas the United States Postal Service, through the decisions of the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee, has 

issued stamps for other popular holidays in the United 

States, including Christmas, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, and 

Eid; 

Whereas the United States Postal Service is yet to issue a 

stamp in honor of the holiday of Diwali; and 

Whereas issuing a postage stamp honoring the holiday of 

Diwali is fitting and proper: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) the United States Postal Service should 

4 issue a postage stamp honoring the holiday of 

5 Diwali; and 

6 (2) the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee 

7 should recommend to the Postmaster General that 

8 such a stamp be issued. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 240 (Friday, December 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87046-87047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27541]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Public Notice of Final Action To Release Surplus Airport Property 
at Kearney Municipal Airport, Kearney, Nebraska

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final action to release airport property.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation 
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century(AIR-21) the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) provides notice that the FAA is approving 
a surplus property land release of Federal obligations for a 5.25 acre 
parcel at the Kearney Muncipal Airport, Kearney, Nebraska.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy J. Walter, Airports Land 
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Central Region Airports 
Division, ACE-

[[Page 87047]]

620, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106, (816)329-2603.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Sponsor self reported the sale of a 
parcel of surplus property airport land prior to receiving required 
authorization and release by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 
FAA authorization is a requirement found in the Federal surplus 
property transfer deeds, 14 CFR part 155, the Federal obligations found 
in the grant assurances and the guidelines outlined in FAAO 5190.6 
Airport Compliance Manual. The 5.25 acre parcel was sold to the 
previous tenant who had improved the parcel with a building and fuel 
storage. Upon FAA request, the airport has submitted acceptable 
corrective actions that include the required documentation of payment 
of Fair Market Value in the amount of $183,500.00. The FAA has 
confirmed that the disposition of proceeds from the sale of the airport 
property are in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B) and FAA's 
Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published 
in the Federal Register on February 16, 1999 (64 FR 7696). In addition, 
the relevant airport records, to include the ALP and the Exhibit A, 
have been updated to reflect the release of this property. The FAA has 
formalized this release with the sponsor in accordance with the 
applicable authorities. As a result, the FAA considers this matter 
closed.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 11, 2023.
James A. Johnson,
Director, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-27541 Filed 12-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONSOF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of Dendrite International, Inc. (the “Company”) for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), John E. Bailye, as ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, and George T. Robson, as Interim ChiefFinancial Officer, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ John E. Bailye   |                                               |
|----------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
| Name:                | John E. Bailye                                     |
| Title:               | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive  Officer |
| Date:                | November 7, 2005                                   |
|                 |                                               |
|                 |                                               |
| /s/ George T. Robson |                                               |
| Name:                | George T. Robson                                   |
| Title:               | Interim Chief Financial Officer                    |
| Date:                | November 7, 2005                                   |
|                      |                                                    |  |

 

----
eca-ex101_1359.htm



 

Exhibit 10.1

 

Fourth Amendment 

to The

Encana (USA) Retirement Plan 

(Amended and Restated Effective March 14, 2014)

 

1.Plan Sponsor:  Encana Services Company Ltd. (the “Plan Sponsor”).

 

2.Amendment of Plan:  Pursuant to the authority of the undersigned and the provisions of Section 13.1 of the Encana (USA) Retirement Plan (the “Plan”), the following Amendment to the Plan is adopted, effective as of the dates set forth below.

 

A.Effective June 1, 2018, Section 1.22 of the Plan is amended in its entirety as follows:

 

1.22Eligible Employee means any Employee of the Employer, but does not include:

 


	
 
	
(a)
	
any Employee included in a unit of Employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the Employer and the Employee representative, the negotiation of which retirement benefits were the subject of good faith bargaining, unless the Employer and the Employee representative have agreed to allow such Employees to participate in the Plan pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement covering such Employees; 




 


	
 
	
(b)
	
any Employee who is a nonresident alien who receives no earned income from the Employer that constitutes income from sources within the United States; 




 


	
 
	
(c)
	
any Employee who is an expatriate covered by the Employer’s retirement plan in the Employee’s country of residence;




 


	
 
	
(d)
	
any Employee who is classified by the Employer as an intern; and




 


	
 
	
(e)
	
any Employee of an Employer with respect to any period prior to the date that the Employer has adopted this Plan with respect to its Employees.




 

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Plan, the term Eligible Employee includes employees of Encana Corporation who are covered by a payroll services agreement between Encana Corporation and Alenco Inc.

 

B.Schedule A of the Plan is amended, effective June 1, 2018 to read as attached hereto.

 

3.Terms and Conditions of Plan:  Except for the above amendment, all terms and conditions of the Plan are unamended and shall remain in full force and effect.

 


	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Fourth Amendment to the Encana (USA) Retirement Plan
	
5/2018
	
1




 



 

3.Execution:  This Fourth Amendment has been executed on the date set forth below.

 


	
Encana Services Company Ltd.

	
Plan Sponsor

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ Chris Casebolt

	
 
	
 
	
Chris Casebolt                          

	
Title:
	
 
	
Chair, Management Pension & Benefits Committee

	
Date:
	
 
	
05/17/2018




 


	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Fourth Amendment to the Encana (USA) Retirement Plan
	
5/2018
	
2




 



 

Encana (USA) Retirement Plan

 

Schedule A -
Participating Employers

 


	
Employer
	
Effective Date of Participation (if after the Effective Date of this amendment and restatement)

	
Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc.
	
n/a

	
Encana Corporation (for the limited purposes specified in Section 1.22)
	
June 1, 2018




 

* * * * End of Schedule A * * * *

 


	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Fourth Amendment to the Encana (USA) Retirement Plan
	
5/2018
	
3
# C_2018436EN.01005901.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/59

---

Action brought on 27 September 2018 — Şanli v Council

(Case T-585/18)

(2018/C 436/82)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Dalokay Şanli (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Gürses, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Council of 31 July 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Council of 31 July 2018;

| — | remove the applicant from the list referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001, and |
| --- | --- |

—

remove the applicant from the list referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001, and

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of essential formal requirements and infringement of the Treaties. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of essential formal requirements and infringement of the Treaties.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that there has been no evidence submitted in the proceedings proving that the applicant has carried out terrorist act. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that there has been no evidence submitted in the proceedings proving that the applicant has carried out terrorist act.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant was unable to defend himself adequately in the procedure that led to the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant was unable to defend himself adequately in the procedure that led to the contested decision.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision is inadequately reasoned. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision is inadequately reasoned.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision was adopted in infringement of the principles of subsidiarity and of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision was adopted in infringement of the principles of subsidiarity and of proportionality.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that Regulation No 2580/2001 is not applicable given that the PKK is not a terrorist organisation. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that Regulation No 2580/2001 is not applicable given that the PKK is not a terrorist organisation.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the adopted decision is contrary to the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the adopted decision is contrary to the principle of proportionality.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0226 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRADLEY JAY HILLIOUS,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 29, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 22 2023

08/22/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0226
[No. 37854.

Department Two.

October 21, 1965.]

#### George Feak *et al., Respondents,*v. B. F. Goodrich Company *et al.,*Appellants.†

*Read & Church,*for appellants.

*Greer' & Frank,*for respondents.

†

Reported in 406 P.2d 776.

Per Curiam.

— Defendant driver1 “rearended” the car of plaintiff2 while she was stopped or stopping to permit a truck in front of her to make a left turn.

*997From, a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendants appeal solely on the ground that the trial judge should not have submitted to the jury the issue of whether the defendant driver was under the influence of or affected by the use of intoxicating liquor.

The only evidence on that issue was that one witness said the defendant driver smelled as though he had been drinking an alcoholic beverage, and that “he was kind of red in the face like a person usually drinking does sometime when they have had a few.” No other witness corroborated this testimony; and while this might permit an inference that the defendant driver was affected by the use of intoxicating liquor, there was no evidence that such effect was a proximate cause of the rear-end collision which caused the plaintiff’s injuries and the damage to her car.

While it was error to submit that issue to the jury, we cannot believe that, under the circumstances, it was prejudicial error. No contention is made that there was not ample proof of the negligence of the defendant driver in rearending the plaintiffs’ car; and no contention is made that the damages are excessive. We, therefore, affirm the judgment.

1

Defendants were Jerry Lee Berg, who was driving a pick-up truck for the other defendant, B. F. Goodrich Company, on company business at the time of the collision.

2

Plaintiffs were Virginia Feak and her husband George. Mrs. Feak was alone in the car at the time it was rearended and she sustained the personal injuries. We shall refer to her as though she was the only plaintiff.