alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w36



 






Exhibit 10.36




January 31,
2006



Eric F. Brown

McAfee, Inc.

5000 Headquarters Drive

Plano, Texas 75024




          Re: Benefits



Dear Eric:




          This letter is to confirm in writing certain benefits that you receive, and will continue to
receive, in your capacity as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer for McAfee, Inc.
This letter does not alter in any way your benefit package as approved by McAfee’s Compensation
Committee.





Travel Expense Benefit: McAfee will pay for, or reimburse you for, all non-business
travel expenses incurred by you for the purpose of traveling between Virginia and McAfee’s
office in Plano, Texas (including coach class airfare, or such higher class as permitted by
McAfee’s Travel Policy, and meal expense reimbursement).




Lodging Expense Benefit: While you are regularly traveling between Virginia and
Plano, Texas, McAfee will provide you with (i) company paid
corporate housing in the Plano,
Texas area (including the payment of all fees, deposits and utilities) and (ii) a company
paid rental car (including reimbursement for fuel costs) for your business and personal use
while working from the Plano, Texas office.




Tax Gross Up: If the provision of the Travel Expense Benefit or Lodging Expense
Benefit are determined to be taxable wages to you pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code,
McAfee will make a payment to you (the gross up payment) to cover all taxes resulting from
the Travel Expense Benefit or Lodging Expense Benefit such that the provision of these
benefits is tax neutral to you.



This letter shall be made a part of your Employment Agreement and except as supplemented above; your Employment
Agreement is ratified and confirmed in accordance with its terms.




	 	 	 
	 

	 	Sincerely,
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	/s/ George Samenuk



George Samenuk
	 

	 	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer






ACKNOWLEDGE
AND AGREED






Eric F. Brown
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 22, 2017

p0315 

# Order

Clerk March 22, 2017

154954

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154954

COA: 326930

Wayne CC: 14

- 010443

- FC

JARELL ANTONIO HOUGH,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 18, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, becau se we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Thaddeus Dupper, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report of Evolving Systems, Inc. on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2012 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Evolving Systems, Inc.

 
| /s/   Thaddeus Dupper                  |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                   |   |
| Thaddeus   Dupper                      |   |
| Chairman   and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| August 30,   2013                 |   |

 

This certification is furnished with this Annual Report on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate it by reference.

 

----
H. R. 3085 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3349 West 

111th Street in Chicago, Illinois, as the ‘‘Captain Herbert Johnson Memorial 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CAPTAIN HERBERT JOHNSON MEMORIAL POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 3349 West 111th Street in Chicago, Illinois, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Captain Herbert Johnson 

Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Captain Herbert Johnson Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 25, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1875

Lower Tribunal No. 19-5346

________________

Susan Braun,

Appellant,

vs.

Tracey Sager, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Yvonne 

Colodny, Judge.

Susan Braun, in proper person.

Shevlin & Atkins, and Barry T. Shevlin and Scott E. Hayden, for 

appellee Jeff Braun; Gutter Chaves Josepher Rubin Forman Fleisher Miller 

P.A., and Sean M. Lebowitz (Boca Raton), for appellee Tracey Sager. 

Before LOGUE, HENDON, and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### BROWN v. STATE.

No. 26298.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 4, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was found guilty of the offense of knowingly passing a forged instrument, and his punishment was assessed at five years. It appears from the record that appellant was placed on probation, and the imposition of his sentence was suspended.

Thereafter, the district attorney filed a motion to revoke said probation, praying that sentence be' pronounced. This *512motion, set up four different .conditions of appellant’s probation which it was alleged had been violated by him.

A hearing was had on said motion, both parties being present including appellant’s attorney. The court, after hearing the evidence, entered an order wherein he revoked the probation .theretofore granted to appellant. . ,

To said order and ruling of the court, the appellant excepted and gave notice of appeal.

We find no sentence in the record, without which the appeal is premature.

The appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> OPUR1
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE PACIFIC
TELECOM, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       918726
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     149440
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          242770
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         16795
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  369836
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1697567
<COMMON>                                             0
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       225943
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             544400
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  770343
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            430928
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               34000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                        75000
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                     5728
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  381568
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  1697567
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       392818
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             34697
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      277994
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      312691
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          80127
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                4972
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   85099
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         30603
<NET-INCOME>                                     54496
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    54496
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         39567
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          145969
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION Ill 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 

The Honorable Keith A. Anderson, Director 

District Department of the Environment 

1200 First Street NE, 5th Floor 

Washington, District of Columbia 20002 

Dear Director Anderson: 

.JUN 1 B 1014 

On June 9, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the 

District of Columbia State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the District Department ofthe Environment 

(DDOE). The SIP revision addresses the infrastructure elements specified in section 110(a)(2) ofthe 

Clean Air Act (CAA) that are necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 nitrogen dioxide 

(N02) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the District of Columbia. EPA has 

determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR). 

If members of your staffhave any questions, they may direct them to Ms. Emlyn Velez-Rosa, 

Office of Air Program Planning, at (215) 814-2038, or velez-rosa.emlyn@epa.gov. 

~4 Diana Esher, Director 

Air Protection Division 

cc: Cecily Beall, Associate Director, Air Quality Division, DDOE 

Rama S. Tangirala, Branch Chief, Monitoring and Assessment Branch, Air Quality Division, DDOE 

0 Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free. 

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
EX-10.11



 






Exhibit 10.11




Schedule to Exhibit 10.9



Non-Competition and Confidentiality Agreements which were substantially identical to that filed as
Exhibit 10.9 were entered into among either Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc. or Duquesne Light Company
and each of the following parties, materially differing as set forth below:




	 	 	 	 	 
	Party and Date Executed	 	Material Differences	 	 
	Mark E. Kaplan, August 30, 2005

	 	Restriction on competition covers area
within a 150-mile radius of Pittsburgh,
PA.
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Restriction on competition covers
telecommunications in addition to
electricity.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Stevan R. Schott, August 9, 1999

	 	Consideration includes severance of one
week per each year of service, minimum of
6 months and maximum of 12 months.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Restriction on competition covers the
states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, West
Virginia, Maryland, New York, New Jersey
and Virginia.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Restriction on competition covers gas in
addition to electricity.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	James E. Wilson, August 17, 2000

	 	Consideration includes severance of 52
weeks of base salary and health and
welfare benefits. Pension benefits are
to accrue during severance period (as
permitted by law).
EXHIBIT
      32.2




CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT 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 The Stephan Co. (the "Company) on Form
      10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert C. Spindler,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that, to my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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






/s/
      Robert C. Spindler


Robert
      C.
      Spindler


Chief
      Financial Officer


May
      20,
      2008


-
        21
        -
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT 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 on Form 10-Q of StockerYale, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Timothy P. Losik, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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



|                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Timothy P. Losik                               
|Timothy P. Losik                                   
|Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|                                                   
|November 14, 2008                                  



34
FIRST COURT OF APPBJ&Sj t^

301 Fannin Street "*-•"-* : Houston, Texas 7J^2'^p^

xrm

RE: Case No. oiQ^ffithelS

Style: David Jones

v. Tiffany Montejo

FI4 11

The time for filing the APPELLANT'S brief has ex

neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time has b

If you intend to file a brief in this case, within 10 days 

you must file a motion requesting an extension of time 

motion to extend time to file a brief.

This appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution 

a motion to extend time that states the facts relied 

appellant's failure to timely file its brief and 

significantly injured by appellant's failure to timely fi

Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b)(1), 38.6(d), 38.8 (a) (1),42. Please 

days if you do not intend to file a brief.

T. C. Case # 1997-17289

NI XI E

Christopher 

Tiffany Montejo

1515 Rudel Dr. Apt* 401

Tomball, TX 77375

787

i- i. v i

ii.Tti uK'i *=

_RE_TU_RN TO SENDER'
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6281

JOHN ERVIN WILSON, a/k/a John Wilson SCDC ID 295493, a/k/a 

John E. Wilson, Jr.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL MCCALL, Warden, Lee Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. 

(9:13-cv-01003-RMG)

Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Ervin Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, 

Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Ervin Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Wilson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 321 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 321

  To amend the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (Public Law 
    112-175) to permit research on firearms safety and gun violence.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 18, 2013

   Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York (for herself, Mr. Markey, Mr. 
   Levin, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. 
 Rangel, Ms. Speier, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Capuano, 
Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Ellison, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Moran, Ms. 
   Moore, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Cicilline, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. Chu, Ms. 
 Matsui, Ms. Norton, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Holt, Mr. Himes, Mr. Schiff, Ms. 
  Schakowsky, Mr. Doyle, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms. Shea-
Porter, Ms. Pingree of Maine, and Ms. Lofgren) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (Public Law 
    112-175) to permit research on firearms safety and gun violence.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    The Act may be cited as the ``Firearm Safety and Public Health 
Research Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. PERMITTING THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR RESEARCH ON FIREARMS 
              SAFETY AND GUN VIOLENCE.

    The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (Public Law 112-175) 
is amended by inserting after section 155 the following:
    ``Sec. 156.  Notwithstanding section 101, sections 218 and 503(c) 
of division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 
112-74) shall not apply to amounts made available by this joint 
resolution insofar as such sections relate to any activity to conduct 
research on firearms safety or gun violence.''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3103 

To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to modify the 

reporting requirements for decisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 

Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. GUTIE ́RREZ, 

and Mr. FORBES) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Select Committee on 

Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 

to modify the reporting requirements for decisions of 

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. 

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 ‘‘Intelligence Oversight 

5 and Accountability Act of 2013’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3103 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR DECISIONS OF 

2 THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEIL3 LANCE COURT. 

4 Section 601(c)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveil5 lance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1871(c)) is amended to read 

6 as follows: 

7 ‘‘(1) not later than 45 days after the date on 

8 which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or 

9 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Re10 view issues a decision, order, or opinion that in11 cludes a denial of a request for an order or a modi12 fication of a request for an order, or results in a 

13 change of application of any provision of this Act or 

14 a new application of any provision of this Act— 

15 ‘‘(A) a copy of such decision, order, or 

16 opinion and any pleadings, applications, or 

17 memoranda of law associated with such deci18 sion, order, or opinion; and 

19 ‘‘(B) with respect to such decision, order, 

20 or opinion, a brief statement of the relevant 

21 background factual information, questions of 

22 law, legal analysis, and decision rendered; and’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS