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


 


March 1, 2005


 


Mr. Edward J. Reilly


Federal Insurance Company


15 Mountain View Road


P. O. Box 1615


Warren, NJ  07061-1615


 


Mr. J. Michael Pete


Arch Insurance Company


3 Parkway, Suite 1500


Philadelphia, PA  19102


 


Re:    Intercreditor Agreement dated
as of October 23, 2003, as amended by the First Amendment to Intercreditor Agreement dated as of March 1, 2005 (as so
amended and as amended from time to time after the date hereof, the “Intercreditor Agreement”)


 


Dear Sirs:


 


This letter memorializes the acknowledgement of the undersigned, Bank
of Texas NA, individually as a Lender and in its capacity as Administrative
Agent (in such capacity, the “Lender Agent”) for and on behalf of the
other Lenders under the terms of that certain Amended and Restated Credit
Agreement dated as of December 31, 2003 (as amended from time to time, the “Credit
Agreement”), that under the Credit Agreement, at the end of any fiscal
quarter, the aggregate amount of the surety facility with the addressees of
this letter may equal the greater of (a) $145,000,000 and (b) the lesser of (i) Two Hundred Seventy-Five Million Dollars ($275,000,000)
and (ii) the amount which causes the Bonded Contract Ratio (as such term is
defined in the Credit Agreement) at the end of such fiscal quarter to exceed 35
percent.  For purposes of determining the
Bonded Contract Ratio, you may rely upon the most recent certificate of a
financial officer of Comfort Systems USA, Inc. to the Lender Agent setting
forth such Bonded Contract Ratio.  In all
capacities established and/or described in the Credit Agreement, as amended,
the undersigned will comply with all requirements and perform any and all of
the responsibilities of the Lender Agent as set out in the Intercreditor
Agreement.


 


[The remainder of this page has been left
blank intentionally.]


 





















 


	
   

  	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  BANK OF TEXAS NA

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Edward H. Braddock

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Edward H. Braddock

  
	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
  Vice President

  
					



 


ACKNOWLEDGED BY:


 


	
  FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

  
	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Edward J. Reilly

  	
   

  
	
  Name: Edward J. Reilly

  	
   

  
	
  Title:
  Assistant Secretary

  	
   

  
			



 


 


	
  ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY

  
	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ J. Michael Pete

  	
   

  
	
  Name: J. Michael Pete

  	
   

  
	
  Title: Asst. Vice President
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 

 The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of 

Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 

1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice 

Thomas J. Moyer. 

 Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's 

Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. 

Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Whitten, Administrative 

Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. 

Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. 

 NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the 

full texts of the opinions after they have been released 

electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised 

to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West 

Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. 

The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume 

and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound 

volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. 

 

 In re Resignation of Bernabei. 

 Stark County Bar Association v. Bernabei. 

 [Cite as In re Resignation of Bernabei (1992), Ohio 

St.3d .] 

 (Nos. 92-1978 and 92-1705 -- Submitted December 10, 1992 

-- Decided December 18, 1992.) 

 The resignation of Vincent J. Bernabei, Attorney 

Registration No. 0016965, is accepted; case No. 92-1705, Stark 

Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bernabei, is dismissed as moot. 

 For earlier case, see (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 1202, 601 

N.E.2d 41. 

 Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown 

and Resnick, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32.1



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 WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund V L.P., Series 4 (the
“Partnership”) for the quarters ended December 31, 2009, September 30, 2009 and June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr., President and Chief Executive
Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify that:



| | 1. | The
    Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the
    extent that such provisions require the audit report of Local Limited Partnership financial statements to refer to the auditing
    standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board for the Partnership’s annual financial statements and except
    that the Report is a cumulative report covering each of the quarters ended December 31, September 30 and June 30, 2009; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
| | 2. | The
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
    of the Partnership.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



|/s/
    Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.                                      | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Wilfred
    N. Cooper, Jr.                                          | 
|President
    and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc. | 
|Date: November 4, 2013.                                             |
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1132 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1132

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and modify the 
                   railroad track maintenance credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 2009

   Mr. Pomeroy (for himself and Mr. Moran of Kansas) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and modify the 
                   railroad track maintenance credit.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF RAILROAD TRACK MAINTENANCE 
              CREDIT.

    (a) Extension of Credit.--Section 45G(f) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting 
``January 1, 2013''.
    (b) Expenditures.--Subsection (d) of section 45G of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified railroad track maintenance 
expenditures) is amended by striking ``for maintaining'' and all that 
follows and inserting ``for maintaining--
                    ``(A) in the case of taxable years beginning after 
                December 31, 2004, and before January 1, 2009, railroad 
                track (including roadbed, bridges, and related track 
                structures) owned or leased as of January 1, 2005, by a 
                Class II or Class III railroad (determined without 
                regard to any consideration for such expenditures given 
                by the Class II or Class III railroad which made the 
                assignment of such track), and
                    ``(B) in the case of taxable years beginning after 
                December 31, 2008, railroad track (including roadbed, 
                bridges, and related track structures) owned or leased 
                as of January 1, 2009, by a Class II or Class III 
                railroad (determined without regard to any 
                consideration for such expenditures given by the Class 
                II or Class III railroad which made the assignment of 
                such track).''.
    (c) Credit Limitation Adjustment.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
45G(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
``$3,500'' and inserting ``$4,500''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 LeCroy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas H. Reslewic, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: February 7, 2008 |  |  |  |                        
|                       |  |  |  | /s/ Thomas H. Reslewic 
|                       |  |  |  | Thomas H. Reslewic     
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.6


2005 Performance Bonus Targets for Named Executive Officers

On March 2, 2005, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the
Company approved the financial performance metrics for fiscal 2005 bonus awards
to participants in the Company's Incentive Compensation Plan, including the
Company's executive officers. Under the Incentive Compensation Plan, the named
executive officers are eligible to receive bonus awards (i) based on the
Company's operating income, with respect to Joseph R. Gromek, Lawrence R.
Rutkowski and Stanley P. Silverstein; (ii) based 60% on the operating income of
the Company's Swimwear Group and 40% on the operating income of the Company,
with respect to Roger A. Williams; and (iii) based 60% on the operating income
of the Company's Sportswear Group and 40% on the operating income of the
Company, with respect to Frank Tworecke. For fiscal 2005, (a) Mr. Gromek's
potential bonus award under the Incentive Compensation Plan is targeted at 100%
of base salary, with a maximum potential bonus award of 185% of target; (b)
Messrs. Rutkowski's and Silverstein's potential bonus awards under the Incentive
Compensation Plan are targeted at 85% of base salary (increased from 70% in
fiscal 2004), with maximum potential bonus awards of 165% of target; and (c)
Messrs. Williams' and Tworecke's potential bonus awards under the Incentive
Compensation Plan are targeted at 70% of base salary, with maximum potential
bonus awards of 165% of target.

In addition to the incentive compensation program described above, the
Compensation Committee reserves the right to pay discretionary bonuses to
executive officers based on certain qualitative considerations and/or
extraordinary performance during the year.
EXHIBIT 10.2

      Description of Consulting Arrangement with DreamField Partners, Inc.


In April 2000, the Company entered into a consulting arrangement with DreamField
Partners, Inc., a company owned by Bill L. Fairfield, a director of the Company.
Under this consulting arrangement, DreamField Partners, Inc. provides consulting
and advisory  services to the SITEL  Technology  Services (STS) business unit of
SITEL as reasonably  requested by STS, for an equivalent  of  approximately  two
days per month. The Company pays DreamField  Partners a consulting fee of $5,000
per month plus  reimbursement of reasonable  expenses  incurred.  The consulting
arrangement continues month to month until terminated by either party.
#### In the Matter of Pedro Torres, Petitioner, v Richard Koehler, as New York City Correction Commissioner, et al., Respondents.

? Determination of the Correction Commissioner of the City of New York, dated July 10, 1989, which dismissed petitioner from his position as a correction officer, is unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of Sup Ct, NY County [Stanley Sklar, J.], entered Sept. 29, 1989) unanimously dismissed, without costs.

We find substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner’s determination that petitioner, on or about November 26, 1987, engaged in conduct unbecoming of an officer and of a nature to bring discredit upon the department when he submitted to a urinalysis exam which proved to be positive for cocaine. The credited testimony of the department’s witnesses established that petitioner was ordered to submit to a Dole test after he was arrested in an apparent drug-related incident. Investigators for the department, who observed petitioner in custody at the precinct, noted that petitioner appeared to be under the influence "of something” due to his unsteadiness, slurred speech and red, glassy eyes. Based upon these specific objective facts, it was reasonable to suspect petitioner of drug use and to issue the drug test order *(Matter of Jefferson v Koehler,*159 AD2d 248).

We find no reason to disturb the Hearing Officer’s findings regarding petitioner’s chain of custody and test validity arguments, as such findings are rationally based in the record. Finally, we do not find the penalty imposed so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                                301,110
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         572,119
<ALLOWANCES>                                           50,000
<INVENTORY>                                         1,607,059
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    2,903,397
<PP&E>                                                549,462
<DEPRECIATION>                                        321,734
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      3,131,125
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               3,705,268
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 560,000
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                           63,653,477
<OTHER-SE>                                             66,714
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        3,131,125
<SALES>                                             3,432,129
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    3,432,129
<CGS>                                               3,461,560
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       4,708,284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    431,473
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     4,023,822
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 5,143,095
<DISCONTINUED>                                      1,119,273
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                             117,500
<NET-INCOME>                                       (4,141,322)
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.16





</TABLE>
#### ZUMMO PACKING CO. v. COTHAM.

No. 3574.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Dec. 13, 1939.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1939.

David E. O’Fiel, of Beaumont, for appellant.

Shivers & Keith, of Port Arthur (Brock-man Horne, of Port Arthur, of counsel), for appellee.

O’QUINN, Justice.

On April 10, 1928, Zummo Packing Company recovered a judgment against C. H. Cotham, in the County Court at Law of Jefferson County, for $433.05 with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from January 1, 1927, until paid. January 3, 1939, F. J. Zummo, claiming to be the owner of said judgment by due assignment and transfer to him, filed this action in said county court to revive said judgment, alleging that the judgment was a valid and subsisting demand, that the judgment was unsatisfied, and that no execution had been issued on same within ten years from the date of its rendition.

Defendant Cotham answered by general demurrer, special demurrer to the *effect*that the plaintiff’s petition showed on its face that the right to revive the judgment was barred by the ten year statute of limitation. He further answered by general denial, and specially that the right to revive the judgment was barred by Article 5532, R.S.1925, pleading the facts as above set out. The answer was duly verified.

The case was tried to the court without a jury, upon an agreed statement of facts, which recites the facts above noted. Judgment was rendered denying a revival of the judgment. From that order appellant prosecutes this appeal.

 Whether or not plaintiff’s right to have the judgment revived was barred by the limitation period fixed by Article 5532, R.S.1925, is the only question presented. Said article provides that “A judgment in any court of record, where execution has not issued within twelve months after the rendition of the judgment, may be revived by scire facias or an action of debt brought thereon within ten years after date of such judgment, and not after.”

Appellant insists that Article 3773, R. S.1925, enacted in 1933, Vernon’s Ann.Civ. *178St. art. 3773, operated as a repeal of Article 5532. That article reads: “If no execution is issued within ten years after the rendition of a judgment in any court of record, the judgment shall become dormant and no execution shall issue thereon unless such judgment be revived. If the first execution has issued within ten years, the judgment shall not become dormant, unless ten years shall have elapsed between the issuance of executions thereon, and execution may issue at any time within ten years after the issuance of the preceding execution.”

In Gillam v. Matthews, Tex.Civ.App., 122 S.W.2d 348, and again in Mingus v. Kadane, Tex.Civ.App., 125 S.W.2d 630, this identical question was before the court, and appellant’s contention overruled. In each of these cases, application for writ of error was dismissed. On the authority of the cited cases, the judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1430

To provide for a temporary increase in the public debt limit.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 23, 1993

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

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide for a temporary increase in the public debt limit.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT.

4 During the period beginning on the date of the enact5 ment of this Act and ending on September 30, 1993, the

6 public debt limit set forth in subsection (b) of section 3101

7 of title 31, United States Code, shall be temporarily in8 creased to $4,370,000,000,000.

Æ
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/aassem01/Desktop/For%20Rendering/EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0317.txt

-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/15/2010 09:12PM -----

To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov 

From: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US 

Date: 01/08/2010 12:56PM 

Subject: slides for RICE NESHAP briefing 

Hi Cortney, 

The slides for Monday's briefing are attached. Have a great weekend. 

(See attached file: CI RICE NESHAP promulgation briefing OMB.ppt) 

Melanie King 

Energy Strategies Group 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Code D243-01 

RTP, NC 27711 

Phone: (919) 541-2469 

Fax: (919) 541-5450 

king.melanie@epa.gov 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/aassem01/Desktop/For%20Rendering/EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0317.txt2/19/2010 12:50:39 PM
Case 1:22-cr-00062-H-BU Document 59 Filed 11/14/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 124