alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w16



 






Exhibit 10.16




November 29, 2005




Mr. Edward A. Brennan

400 North Michigan Avenue

Suite 400

Chicago, IL 60611




Dear Ed:




          This will confirm the following agreement relating to the deferral of your director’s fees in
2006.




          1. All director’s fees and retainers (“Fees”) payable to you in connection with your service
on the boards of directors (including committees of such boards) of AMR Corporation and American
Airlines, Inc. for the period January 1, 2006 through the date of the annual meeting of AMR
Corporation, will be deferred and paid to you in accordance with this letter agreement.




          2. Fees will be converted to Stock Equivalent Units in accordance with the Directors’ Stock
Equivalent Purchase Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Plan”).




          3. When you cease to be a Director of AMR Corporation (the “Departure Date”), the Stock
Equivalent Units accrued in 2006 pursuant to the Plan will be paid to you as follows:





	 	a)	 	20% of such units on the 30th business day following the Departure Date;
	 
	 	b)	 	20% of such units on the 1st anniversary of the Departure Date;
	 
	 	c)	 	20% of such units on the 2nd anniversary of the Departure Date;
	 
	 	d)	 	20% of such units on the 3rd anniversary of the Departure Date;
	 
	 	e)	 	20% of such units on the 4th anniversary of the Departure Date;





                    The payment will be calculated by multiplying the number of Stock
Equivalent Units to be paid
by the arithmetic mean of the high and low of AMR stock during the month immediately preceding the
payment date.



          4. In the event of your death, the number of Stock Equivalent Units as of your date of death
will be multiplied by the fair market value of AMR stock during the calendar month immediately
preceding your death, and the amount paid to Lois Brennan. The payment contemplated by this
paragraph 4 will be made on the 30th business day following the date of your death.




 









 








          If the foregoing is satisfactory to you, please indicate by signing one of the originals (two
are enclosed) and returning it to me.




Very truly yours,




Charles D. MarLett

Corporate Secretary




Accepted and agreed:




	 	 	 
	/s/ Edward A. Brennan
 


	 	 
	Edward A. Brennan
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	  12/02/2005
 


	 	 
	Date
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27456]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration


Science Board to the Food and Drug Administration; Notice of 
Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory 
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will 
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Science Board to the Food and Drug 
Administration.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and 
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on November 17, 2000, 
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: Food and Drug Administration, CDER Advisory Committee 
Meeting Room, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.
    Contact Person: Susan Mackie Bond, Office of Science 
Coordination and Communication (HF-33), Food and Drug 
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-
6687, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 
(301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area), code 12603. Please call 
the Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.
    Agenda: The board will meet to hear and to discuss the following 
issues: (1) Emerging science issues at FDA, (2) strategies for 
maintaining quality of science at FDA, and (3) programmatic peer 
review.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or 
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. 
Written submissions may be made to the contact person by November 7, 
2000. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between 
approximately 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. Time allotted for each presentation 
may be limited. Those desiring to make formal oral presentations 
should notify the contact person before November 7, 2000, and submit 
a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments 
they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed 
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to 
make their presentation.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: October 18, 2000.
Linda S. Suydam,
Senior Associate Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 00-27456 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3263 

Eliminating the debt ceiling for a period defined, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 5, 2013 

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

Eliminating the debt ceiling for a period defined, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Fiscal Sanity Act for 

5 the National Debt’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NONAPPLICABILITY OF DEBT CEILING. 

7 Section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, shall 

8 not apply for the period beginning on the date of the en9 actment of this Act and ending 150 days thereafter. 

10

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Tongli Pharmaceuticals (USA), Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Li Li, principal financial officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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.





Date: July 14, 2011





By:
/s/ Li Li


Name: Li Li


Title: Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer)







This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





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.
#### MEADE v. COLLINS et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Sept. 25, 1951.

E. Poe Harris, Ashland, for appellant.

P. H. Vincent, Ashland, for appellee.

CLAY, Commissioner.

Appellees sought to compel appellant either to remove a barn or pay damages for the obstruction of a roadway leading from appellees’ home to a main highway. The judgment denied an -injunction, but awarded .$500 damages. The only question on this appeal concerns the reasonableness of this amount.

The evidence showed, and it is apparently conceded, that appellees had a 30 foot right of way adjoining appellant’s property. In this right of way was a well defined, used road about 15 feet. wide. Appellant erected a substantial barn near appellees’ residence which did not extend over the traveled portion' of the road, but did encroach 9 feet at one end and 6 feet at the other upon the 30 foot right of.way. It does riot so obstruct the roadway as to prevent appellees from traveling by vehicle to or from their property.

The evidence shows, and we think it obvious, that the value of appellees’ property has been to some extent diminished. The two appellees fix this damage at from $1000 to $2500. The real reasons for these substantial estimates seem to be the existence of the barn in close proximity to the dwelling house, and bad feeling between the parties. However there is proof that a creek opposite the barn is gradually eroding the right of way, and sometime in the future the presence of the barn may put appellees to additional expense in protecting the road from the invasion of the creek. In addition, appellees have been permanently deprived of a substantial property right.

Considering the nature of this obstruction, the invasion of appellees’ rights, the inconvenience, and diminution in the value of appellees’ property, we do not think the award of $500 was .unreasonable or excessive.

The judgment, is affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1
                                                                    ------------
                              Chiles Offshore Inc.
                              11200 Richmond Avenue
                                    Suite 490
                              Houston, Texas 77082


March 28, 2002

United States Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Judiciary Plaza
Washington, D.C. 20549


Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have received a letter of representation from Arthur Andersen LLP stating
that their audit of the financial statements contained in Chiles Offshore Inc.'s
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001, of which this
Exhibit 99.1 is a part, was subject to their quality control system for the U.S.
accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there
was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen LLP personnel working on the audit
and availability of national office consultation. Availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen is not relevant to this audit.

Sincerely,

CHILES OFFSHORE INC.

/s/  Dick Fagerstal
------------------------------------
Dick Fagerstal
Senior Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer and Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            4,213
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    16,679
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (907)
<INVENTORY>                                     113,992
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                144,097
<PP&E>                                           38,618
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (42,889)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  190,017
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            75,460
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                          9,592
<OTHER-SE>                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    190,017
<SALES>                                          58,708
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 58,708
<CGS>                                            44,622
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    44,622
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 16,220
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    112
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,778
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (3,174)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (1,150)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (2,024)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (2,024)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.21)



</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 10.42
 Final March 18, 2008
 CSK AUTO, INC.
 2008 CASH IN LIEU BONUS PLAN
 ARTICLE I
General
 1.1 Purpose
 1.2 Plan Administration.
   1.3 Definitions
      1




---



##### 



Final March 18, 2008
      ARTICLE II
Participation
 2.1 Participation
 ARTICLE III
Bonus Payment
 3.1 Bonus Amount.
 3.2 Form of Bonus
 3.3 Vesting.
  2




---



##### 



Final March 18, 2008
   3.4 Payment.
 ARTICLE IV
Amendment or Termination
 4.1 Amendment; Termination
 4.2 Successors
 3




---



##### 



Final March 18, 2008
 ARTICLE V
Miscellaneous
 5.1 Set-Off
 5.2 Parachute Payments
 5.3 Non-Alienation
 5.4 Withholding
 5.5 Source of Payments
 5.6 Notices
 5.7 Gender and Number
 5.8 No Right to Employment or Continuation of Relationship
 4




---



##### 



Final March 18, 2008
  5.9 Governing Law
 5.10 Severability
 5.11 No Limitation Upon the Rights of the Company
 5
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Brian R. Ervine, 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 Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2005 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.



This
certification is furnished with this Annual Report on 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 by the Company 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 the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

---



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1754

ANA L. CAUSSADE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JESSE BROWN, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95-

397-AMD)

Argued: January 31, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: James Lester Kestell, KESTELL & ASSOCIATES, Arlington,

Virginia, for Appellant. Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States

Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael P.

Deeds, KESTELL & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Virginia; Lawrence J.

Sherman, DESO, THOMAS, SPEVAK, WEITMAN & ROST, P.C., Washington,

D.C., for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ana Caussade claims that her employer, the Veterans Administration, violated her rights under the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Caussade's claim is

based on her allegation that she suffered an adverse employment

action because of her age and Puerto Rican heritage.

Caussade has worked as a nurse for the Veterans Administration

in positions of increasing responsibility for over 20 years.

Between 1989 and 1993, Caussade's relationship with her immediate

supervisor deteriorated, and she was transferred to a different

position within the same hospital. She claims that she was transferred to a position of less prestige and was no longer permitted

to use her office. Nevertheless, she retained the same title,

grade, salary, and level of responsibility.

Finding no genuine issue of material fact, the district court

entered summary judgment against Caussade. The court reasoned that

she could not prevail because her reassignment did not constitute

an adverse employment action. The reassignment was made during the

course of a bona fide reorganization in which seven head nurses

were reassigned, and the reasons for reassigning Caussade were not

pretextual. Finding no reversible error, we affirm for reasons

adequately stated in the district court's opinion.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 4(k)


    
      
        Exhibit
          4(k)

        

         

        
          
            	 	 Kathryn A. Cassidy
                    
	 	 Vice President and GE
                    Treasurer
	 	   
	 	 General Electric Company
	 	 3135 Easton Turnpike
	 	 Fairfield,
                    CT 06828 


          

        

         

         

      

      Securities
        and Exchange Commission

      100
        F
        Street, NE

      Washington,
        DC 20549

      


      March
        3,
        2006

      


      
        	
                Subject: 

              	
                General
                  Electric Company Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
                  ended
                  December 31, 2005 - File No.
                  1-35

              


      

       

      Dear
        Sirs:

      


      Neither
        General Electric Company (the “Company”) nor any of its consolidated
        subsidiaries has outstanding any instrument with respect to its long-term
        debt,
        other than those filed as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K
        for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, under which the total amount
        of
        securities authorized exceeds 10% of the total assets of the registrant and
        its
        subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. In accordance with paragraph (b)(4)(iii)
        of Item 601 of Regulation S-K (17 CFR Sec. 229.601), the Company hereby agrees
        to furnish to the Securities and Exchange Commission, upon request, a copy
        of
        each instrument that defines the rights of holders of such long term debt
        not
        filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report
        on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005.

      


      Very
        truly yours, 

      


      GENERAL
        ELECTRIC COMPANY

      


      
 

      /s/
        Kathryn A. Cassidy

      Kathryn
        A. Cassidy 

      Vice
        President and GE Treasurer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27596]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE:  November 2, 2000 at 11 a.m.

PLACE:  Room 101, 500 E Street S.W., Washington, DC 20436 Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Agenda for future meeting: none
    2. Minutes
    3. Ratification List
    4. Inv. Nos. AA1921-197; 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 
342, and 348-350; and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, 
and 614-618 (Review) (Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, 
Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, 
Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and 
the United Kingdom. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit 
its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of 
Commerce on November 20, 2000.)
    5. Outstanding action jackets:
    (1.) Document No. GC-00-071: Administrative matters.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    Issued: October 23, 2000.

    By order of the Commission:
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27596 Filed 10-23-00; 2:12 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-U
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

To: Nathan Topham/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 10/28/2011 05:01 PM 

Subject: RE: E.O. 12866 NESHAP Primary Lead Processing Final AQ-43 - Response to 

OMB's 10/28 Questions

Hi Nate, 

Thanks for sending this information over. 

 

The source category listing was for “Primary Lead Smelting,” not Primary Lead Processing. Smelting is a 

heat based 

process. Isn’t the new process that Doe Run is planning to install an aqueous based process? Have you 

had 

discussions about that point? 

 

Regards, 

Cortney 

 

From: Topham.Nathan@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Topham.Nathan@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 4:36 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Talcott.Fred@epamail.epa.gov; French.Chuck@epamail.epa.gov; 

tierney.jan@epamail.epa.gov; Secrest.Cary@epamail.epa.gov; 

Garlow.Charlie@epamail.epa.gov; Benner.Tim@epamail.epa.gov; 

Stewart.Michael@epamail.epa.gov; vahanzel@rti.org; mnl@rti.org 

Subject: E.O. 12866 NESHAP Primary Lead Processing Final AQ-43 - Response to OMB's 

10/28 Questions 

 

Hi Cortney, 

In response to some of your questions on our call today: 

1. There were no comments (supportive or adverse) on the original NESHAP related to the source 

category applicability definition. The comments are all included in the preamble. 

2. I've attached the initial source category listing document and the background document. Where you'll 

want to look is page A-8 for the description of primary lead. Please note the first sentence of the 

paragraph is pretty clear in saying the category includes any facility processing lead ore to lead metal. 

3. In response to your question about case-by-case MACT, as I understand it, the provision in 112(j) sets 

up a program for states to develop permits where the EPA has failed to promulgate a standard on time. 

I'm not an expert on the nuances but if you take a look at 112(j) it may provide some basic 

understanding 

of the provision. 
Do you think we need to set up a time to have a call on Monday? 

Nathan Topham 

Environmental Engineer 

US EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MIG 

Phone - (919)541-0483