alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.1



 





EXHIBIT 10.1




March 30, 2005




Mr. John A. Ciccarelli

9621 Cypress Hammock Circle, #201

Bonita Springs, FL 34135



Dear Chic:


This letter will serve as an Agreement under which you will serve, at the pleasure of the Board of
Directors of Dayton Superior Corporation (“DSC”), as Chairman of the Board of DSC. Following are
the terms of this arrangement:





	 	1.  	You shall serve as Chairman of the Board of DSC until such time as the Board of
Directors of DSC gives you written notice that it no longer wishes you to serve in such
capacity.
	 
	 	2.  	Beginning January 1, 2005, you shall be compensated the sum of $100,000 per year for
serving as Chairman of the Board of DSC, such sum payable within fourteen (14) days after
the end of calendar year 2005. If you are notified that the Board of Directors no longer
wishes you to serve in such capacity at any time other than at the end of a calendar year,
your compensation shall be prorated up to the date upon which you cease to serve as
Chairman of the Board, and the prorated amount shall be paid to you within fourteen (14)
days. Beginning January 1, 2006, the annual compensation of $100,000 shall be paid on a
quarterly basis, with $25,000 payable within fourteen (14) days after the end of each
calendar quarter during which this Agreement is in effect.
	 
	 	3.  	Unless otherwise determined by the Board of Directors of DSC, you shall receive no
other Company benefits (such as benefits under the Company’s medical, dental, vision,
disability, life insurance, bonus, stock option, 401(k) or retirement plans) during the
period in which you are serving as Chairman of the Board of DSC.
	 
	 	4.  	The Company shall reimburse you, per normal Company procedures, for all reasonable and
customary business and travel expenses incurred by you in your capacity as Chairman of the
Board of DSC.
	 
	 	5.  	You may relinquish this position at any time, for any reason, by giving written notice
to the Board of Directors of DSC, at which time this Agreement shall immediately cease to
be effective, and any amounts due you (prorated or






 








 






Mr. John A. Ciccarelli

Page 2

March 30, 2005





otherwise) shall be paid to you within fourteen (14) days. Conversely, the Board of
Directors of DSC may request that you immediately relinquish this position, or relieve you
of the duties and responsibilities of this position at any time, for any reason, by giving
written notice to you, at which time this Agreement shall immediately cease to be effective,
and any amounts due you (prorated or otherwise) shall be paid to you within fourteen (14)
days.


If the terms of this Letter Agreement are acceptable to you, please indicate your acceptance by
signing below. We are pleased that you have agreed to remain as our Chairman of the Board and look
forward to continuing our relationship.




Sincerely,



/s/ Stephen Berger



Stephen Berger



AGREED:



/s/ John A. Ciccarelli



John A. Ciccarelli
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6242]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              THE ECONOMY

  Mr. REID. Very quickly, Madam President, I was very disappointed to 
hear Speaker Boehner say yesterday that he was giving up on reaching a 
bipartisan agreement to avoid huge cuts to both domestic and defense 
programs. I don't feel that way. I can assure everyone within the sound 
of my voice that I have not given up on finding a reasonable and 
balanced approach to reducing our debt and avoiding these difficult 
cuts. Democrats agree that across-the-board cuts are not the best way 
to solve the problems. Sequestration is a bitter pill, but we did that 
on purpose. That was no accident. That is why there was overwhelming 
support for the budget deficit reduction act to have sequestration. The 
sequestration was engineered to be hard to take, so it forced us to 
compromise. It was designed to be tough enough to force the two sides 
to reach a balanced deal. That is why there was widespread bipartisan 
support for this.
  I hope Speaker Boehner will reconsider. I believe it is much too 
early to give up. I urge my Republican colleagues not to give up on 
themselves because I am not going to give up on them. It is time for 
them to stop rooting for the economy to fail and root for Congress to 
succeed and reach common ground. Remember, the markets are watching our 
every move, with Moody's saying yesterday that they were thinking of 
downgrading our debt standing credit rating. This is not the right time 
to say there is no hope in getting things done. I disagree. I say that 
the glass is half full, not half empty.
  The Speaker's statement came an hour after that reminder from Moody's 
came forward. We are willing to work. I say that to my friend John 
Boehner and to everyone else. We are willing to negotiate, we are 
willing to cooperate, we are willing to consider the difficult cuts to 
programs we hold dear, and I think the Republicans should do the same. 
So far they have refused. Due to the orders of their leader Grover 
Norquist, they have refused to raise even a penny of new revenue. They 
have refused to ask millionaires to contribute their fair share to help 
reduce the debt and the deficit. And Democrats won't agree to a one-
sided solution that lets the superwealthy off the hook while forcing 
the middle class and those in greatest need to bear all the hardship. I 
repeat, we are willing to consider difficult cuts to programs we 
believe are extremely important.
  The sequestration is not a perfect legislative tool, but rarely do we 
do anything legislatively that is perfect. That is the way it has been 
for generations. But at least it has the benefit of being a balanced 
approach, and it has the power of law.
  Republicans, including Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan, would 
do well to remember that they voted for the sequestration.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         2,093,006
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,533,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                   15,030
<INVENTORY>                                    178,215
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7,503,942
<PP&E>                                         2,397,176
<DEPRECIATION>                                 438,998
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,142,668
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10,197,309
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    208
<COMMON>                                       18,243
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,458,539
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,142,668
<SALES>                                        12,267,148
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               12,267,148
<CGS>                                          10,057,277
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  14,476,013
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (25,283)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             27,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,210,982)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   7,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,218,482)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,218,482)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.16)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5709]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. CARNAHAN:
       H.R. 6303.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I. Section 1. ``All legislative Powers herein 
     granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, 
     which shall consist of a Senate and a House of 
     Representatives.''
```
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to lst Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 03-1971

JANICE W. STEVENSON,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL OF LAW AT ANDOVER, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Torruella, Circuit Judge,

Cyr and Stahl, Senior Circuit Judges.

Janice W. Stevenson on brief pro se.

Peter M. Malaguti on brief for appellees.

March 30, 2004
-2-

Per Curiam. The order of dismissal is affirmed

substantially for the reasons recited in the district court's

opinion dated May 7, 2003. Plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 alleging a violation of her First Amendment rights plainly

fails for lack of state action. See, e.g., Rendell-Baker v. Kohn,

457 U.S. 830, 837-43 (1982); Logiodice v. Trustees of Maine Central

Inst., 296 F.3d 22, 26-29 (1st Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S.

1107 (2003); Krohn v. Harvard Law School, 552 F.2d 21, 23-24 (1

st

Cir. 1977). Her remaining claims have not been pursued on appeal

and thus have been abandoned. See, e.g., Kearney v. Town of

Wareham, 316 F.3d 18, 22 (1st Cir. 2002). We add that the district

court's disposition of those claims appears unexceptionable in any

event.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.69  


         

  


March 4,
2005 


Mr. Ken
Saunders

3611 Valley Centre Drive

San Diego, CA 92130 


RE:
Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement 



Dear
Ken: 


        This
letter sets forth the agreement between you and Peregrine Systems, Inc. (the "Company") to amend the terms of the amended and restated letter agreement between you and the
Company, dated as of March 4, 2005 (the "Amended and Restated Employment Agreement"), as set forth herein. 


        Effective
as of February 2, 2005, the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement is hereby amended such that Section 3(d) the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement is
deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 



        "(d) Process Improvement Bonus. You will be entitled to process improvement bonuses in accordance with the following: 



	(i)
	$75,000
payable on February 2, 2005 in recognition of your efforts related to the completion of the consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2004 and the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") of Peregrine's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31,
2004;



	(ii)
	$25,000
if Peregrine's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 is filed with the SEC by February 15, 2005,
or, if such filing is not made by such date, the financial statements and management's discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations ("MD&A") for that quarterly period are
completed in time to permit a filing by such date;



	(iii)
	$25,000
if Peregrine's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 is filed with the SEC by March 31, 2005,
or, if such filing is not made by such date, the financial statements and MD&A for that quarterly period are completed in time to permit a filing by such date; and



	(iv)
	$25,000
if Peregrine's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 is filed with the SEC by May 15, 2005, or,
if such filing is not made by such date, the financial statements and MD&A for that quarterly period are completed in time to permit a filing by such date. 






If
the bonuses are earned with respect the filing of the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended June 30, 2004, September 30, 2004 or December 31,
2004, the bonuses will be payable to you within 30 days of the date the applicable Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q is filed with the SEC." 









 





        Other
than as set forth herein, the terms and conditions of your Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Please acknowledge your agreement with the
foregoing by executing this letter in the space provided below. 



	 	 	Sincerely,
	

 	
 	

John Mutch

Chief Executive Officer
	

Acknowledged and agreed

to as of March 4, 2005	
 	

 
	

	
 	

 
	Ken Saunders	 	 




2
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**






**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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






In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of  SHELBY GROUP, INC., (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Kevin Ericksteen, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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






/s/
      Kevin
      Ericksteen


Kevin
      Ericksteen


Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer




Date: October
      10, 2007
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4589 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to expand 

the military student identifier program to cover students with a parent 

who serves in the reserve component of the Armed Forces. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2017 

Mr. CORREA (for himself, Mr. COFFMAN, Ms. NORTON, Mr. GALLEGO, Ms. 

SHEA-PORTER, Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas, Ms. HANABUSA, Ms. ROYBALALLARD, Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico, Mr. SEAN

PATRICK MALONEY of New York, and Mr. SIRES) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 to expand the military student identifier program to cover students with a parent who serves in 

the reserve component of the Armed Forces. 

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 ‘‘Supporting Children 

5 of the National Guard and Reserve Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4589 IH

1 SEC. 2. ANNUAL STATE REPORT CARD. 

2 Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the Elementary and Sec3 ondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

4 6311(h)(1)(C)(ii)) is amended by striking ‘‘on active duty 

5 (as defined in section 101(d)(5) of such title)’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF DETROIT DIESEL CORPORATION
                                (as of 12/31/96)


                                                             JURISDICTION OF
                                                             INCORPORATION/
    SUBSIDIARY NAME                                          FORMATION
    ---------------                                          ---------------
    Outer Drive Holdings, Inc.                               Delaware
         DD-ACE, Inc.                                        Delaware
         Florida Detroit Diesel-Allison, Inc.                Delaware
         Florida Detroit Diesel-Allison North, Inc.          Delaware
         Hawaii Detroit Diesel-Allison, Inc.                 Delaware
         MDDA, Inc.                                          Delaware
         Outer Drive Holdings-North, Inc.                    Delaware
    DAVCO-DDC, Inc.                                          Delaware
    Detroit Diesel Realty, Inc.                              Michigan
    Detroit Diesel Credit Corporation                        Delaware
    DDR-Holdings Corporation                                 Delaware
         Detroit Diesel Remanufacturing Corporation          Delaware
               Detroit Diesel Remanufacturing-Central, Inc.  Delaware
               Detroit Diesel Remanufacturing-East, Inc.     Delaware
               Detroit Diesel Remanufacturing-South, Inc.    Delaware
               Detroit Diesel Remanufacturing-West, Inc.     Delaware
    Detroit Diesel Export Corporation                        Barbados
    Detroit Diesel of Canada, Ltd.                           Delaware
    VM Holdings, Inc.                                        Delaware
         VM Motori, S.p.A.                                   Italy
         Detroit Diesel Motores do Brasil Ltda.              Brazil
    Detroit Diesel Overseas Distribution Corporation         Delaware
    Detroit Diesel (Suisse) AG SA                            Switzerland
    Detroit Diesel Overseas Corporation                      Delaware
         Mexico Detroit Diesel Allison Corporation           Texas
         Detroit Diesel-Allison de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.      Mexico
         Detroit Diesel Distribution Center, B.V.            The Netherlands
         Detroit Diesel Asia Pte. Ltd.                       Singapore
               Detroit Diesel-Allison (Malaysia) SDN BHD     Malaysia
    Pacific DDA Holdings, Inc.                               Delaware



                                    



                                      71
# C_2008301EN.01006601.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/66

---

Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Locchi v Commission

(Case F-78/08)

(2008/C 301/128)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Carlo Locchi (Besozzo, Italy) (represented by: F. Parrat, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to exclude the applicant from the list of officials pre-selected for the certification procedure 2007 and annulment of Commission decision C(2007) 5694 of 20 November 2007 relating to the general provisions implementing Article 45a of the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision to omit the applicant from the definitive list of candidates pre-selected for the certification procedure 2007 and, consequently, the decision also to omit the applicant from the list of candidates pre-selected with the best marks and from the list of applicants admitted to the certification procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision to omit the applicant from the definitive list of candidates pre-selected for the certification procedure 2007 and, consequently, the decision also to omit the applicant from the list of candidates pre-selected with the best marks and from the list of applicants admitted to the certification procedure;

| — | Annul Commission decision C(2007) 5694 of 20 November 2007 concerning the general provisions implementing Article 45a of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission decision C(2007) 5694 of 20 November 2007 concerning the general provisions implementing Article 45a of the Staff Regulations;

| — | Annul, in so far as it is necessary, the decision to reject the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, in so far as it is necessary, the decision to reject the complaint;

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---
Relative Poverty Rates in Appalachia, 2013–2017

(County Rates as a Percentage of the U.S. Average)

A poverty rate is the ratio of the persons below the poverty level 

to the total number of persons for whom poverty status has been 

determined.The percent of the U.S. average is computed by 

dividing the county poverty rate by the national average and 

multiplying by 100. The map uses critical breaks such as the 

national average to organize the data into groups of common 

values.

Map Created: August 2019

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 

American Community Survey, 2013–2017

0 50 100

Miles

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

DE

NJ PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

TENNESSEE

150.0% - 280.8%

100.1% - 149.9%

75.1% - 100.0%

44.5% - 75.0%

Percent of the U.S. Average

(Critical Breaks Classification)

U.S. average = 14.6%

Appalachian average = 16.3%
* 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

September 27, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60952

Summary Calendar

 

HANA BEDIRU,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A74 509 250

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hana Bediru petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) opinion that affirmed the decision of

the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture Act. As

Bediru does not specifically challenge the IJ’s denial of her

application for withholding of removal or her request from relief

under the Convention Against Torture Act, the issues are deemed
2

abandoned. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th

Cir. 1986).

Bediru contends that the IJ erred in finding her

testimony not credible and erred in finding that she did not have

a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Ethiopia. We

review the IJ’s decision because the BIA essentially adopted the

IJ’s decision. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir.

2002). We will uphold the IJ’s determination that Bediru is not

eligible for asylum if it is supported by substantial evidence.

Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). To reverse the

IJ’s determination that Bediru is not eligible for asylum, she must

demonstrate the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable

factfinder could conclude against it. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78

(5th Cir. 1994). We will not “review decisions turning purely on

the [IJ’s] assessment of the alien petitioner’s credibility.”

Chun, 40 F.3d at 78 (quotation and citation omitted).

This court need not decide the credibility issue because,

even accepting Bediru’s testimony as true with regard to her fear

of persecution upon returning to Ethiopia, a review of the briefs

and the administrative records shows that the IJ’s determination

that Bediru failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future

persecution is supported by substantial evidence. See Ozdemir v.

INS, 46 F.3d 6, 8 (5th Cir. 1994); see Chun, 40 F.3d at 78.

PETITION DENIED.