alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.4  Bonus Agreement with Fred Hite

    


    BONUS
AGREEMENT

    


    This
Bonus Agreement (the “Agreement”) between Symmetry Medical Inc. (“Symmetry”) and
Fred Hite (“Mr. Hite”) is made this 11th day of January, 2011.

    


    WHEREAS,
the Board of Directors of Symmetry Medical, Inc. (the “Board”) has acknowledged
Mr. Hite’s importance to the Company;

    


    WHEREAS,
the Board desires to reward Mr. Hite for his prior service and incent him to
remain with the Company;

    


    WHEREAS,
the Board has authorized the payment of a Bonus to Mr. Hite in an amount of
$100,000 under the terms of this Agreement.

    


    NOW
THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

    


    
      	
              1.

            	
              The
      Bonus.  Symmetry shall pay to Mr. Hite an amount of
      $100,000 (the “Bonus”), less applicable taxed and other withholdings
      authorized by law or Mr. Hite within ten (10) days of the date of this
      Agreement.

            


    

     

    
      	
              2.

            	
              Repayment
      Obligations.  Mr. Hite shall repay the Bonus to Symmetry
      within thirty (30) days following any termination of his employment prior
      to January 17, 2012:

            


    

     

    
      	
               
      

            	
              a.

            	
              by
      him without Good Reason (and not due to death or Disability) as that term
      is defined in the Severance Agreement (the “Agreement”) into which he
      entered with Symmetry on May 4, 2010;
or

            


    

     

    
      	
               
      

            	
              b.

            	
              by
      Symmetry for Cause as that term is defined in the
    Agreement.

            


    

     

    Intending
to be bound, the parties affix their signatures below.

    


    
      
        
          
            
              
                	
                        Mr.
      Fred Hite:

                      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                        s/ Fred Hite

                      	 
      	
                        January 11, 2011

                      
	
                        Signature

                      	 
      	
                        Date

                      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                        Symmetry
      Medical, Inc.:

                      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                        s/ David C. Milne

                      	 
      	
                        January 11, 2011

                      
	
                        David
      C. Milne, SVP of HR,

                      	 
      	
                        Date

                      
	
                        General
      Counsel & Corporate Secretary
#### Eugene A. Merrill *vs.*Delbert M. Benner.

Kennebec County.

Decided September 26, 1922.

This is an action of deceit to recover damages for alleged misrepresentations in the sale of farm property. The jury found a verdict for the *593plaintiff for the sum of $4,450; the case is before us upon a general motion. The defendant strenuously insists that the verdict is manifestly wrong on the issue of liability, and that, even if the court is not convinced that a new trial should be granted for that reason, the damages awarded are clearly excessive.

We have given the record our careful consideration. The declaration contains allegations charging actionable misrepresentations as to the farm, which we have classified under five heads; (i) as to the orchard on the “Sand Knoll place” and the production of apples thereon; (2) as to the shingling of the buildings; (3) as to the location of a spring claimed by defendant to be on the “Sand Knoll place;” (4) as to the amount of wood on the Blaisdell lot and the quality of the orchard thereon; (5) representations as to the timber lot of 32 acres excepting those excluded as not actionable; the declaration contains two other charges of misrepresentations as to the farm, one of which was abandoned by plaintiff’s counsel as inserted by error, the other relating to value of standing timber on the 32-acre lot, excluded by the presiding Justice from consideration by the jury as not actionable. Another charge of actionable misrepresentation relates to certain sawed and unsawed lumber, sold by defendant to plaintiff in a transaction independent of the sale of the farm; the latter charge appears to have been lost to sight in the trial, and we have been unable to discover any evidence affording basis for an award of damages, even if the charge is sustained. Our consideration of the case is therefore confined to the first five classes of representations relating to the farm.

That the representations alleged related to material facts directly aSecting the value ol the property, is not questioned. Whether such representations were in fact made by the defendant, were false, and were relied upon by the plaintiff as material influences inducing him to purchase the property are questions of fact for the jury. The weight to be given to the testimony was an important, practically controlling, element in the decision of the case. Without extending here an analysis of the evidence, it is sufficient to say that the record contains ample evidence, if believed by the jury, to sustain their verdict on the question of liability for all five classes of representations. We perceive no ground upon which we are justified in reversing their conclusion.

*594*Pattangall & Locke,*for plaintiff.

*McGillicuddy & Morey,*for defendant.

As to the damages. A majority of the court deem the award of damages excessive and are of the opinion that a verdict of three thousand dollars is ample. Motion overruled if plaintiff within twenty days after mandate is filed remits all of the verdict in excess of $3,000; otherwise motion sustained.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Assessment of RELAP5/MOD2 Against a Main Feedwater Turbopump Trip Transient in the Vandellos II Nuclear Power Plant (NUREG/IA-0110, ICSP–V2–TURFW–R)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0110 (PDF 1.33 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** December 1993

**Prepared by:** C. Llopis, A. Casals/A. N. V. J. Perez, R. Mendizabal/C. S. N.

Asociacion Nuclear Vandellos (A. N. V.) Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear (C. S. N.) Madrid, Spain

**Prepared as part of:** The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange under the International Thermal-Hydraulic Code Assessment and Application Program (ICAP)

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear (CSN) and the Asociacion Nuclear Vandellos (ANV) have developed a model of Vandellos II Nuclear Power Plant. The ANV collaboration consisted in the supply of design and actual data, the cooperation in the simulation of the control systems and other model components, as well as in the results analysis.

The obtained model has been assessed against the following transients occurred in plant: 
>  - A trip from the 100% power level (CSN) - A load rejection from 100% to 50% (CSN) - A load rejection from 75% to 65% (ANV) - A feedwater turbopump trip (ANV) 

This copy is a report of the feedwater turbopump trip transient simulation. This transient ocurred actually in plant on June 19, 1989.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
#### Theodore F. MELICHAR, petitioner, v. Betty Jane OST.

No. 81-1550.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 19, 1982.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Denied.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1278 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to require firearm assembly kits 

to be considered to be firearms. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2017 

Mr. ESPAILLAT (for himself, Mr. SCHNEIDER, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Ms. 

NORTON, Mr. COHEN, Mr. RASKIN, Mr. DEUTCH, Mr. BLUMENAUER, 

Mr. CICILLINE, Mr. GUTIE ́RREZ, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, and 

Mr. SWALWELL of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to require firearm 

assembly kits to be considered to be firearms. 

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 ‘‘Ghost Guns Are Guns 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FIREARM ASSEMBLY KITS CONSIDERED TO BE 

7 FIREARMS. 

8 Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 

9 amended— 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1278 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘or (D) any 

2 destructive device’’ and inserting ‘‘; (D) any destruc3 tive device; or (E) any combination of parts designed 

4 or intended for use in converting any device into a 

5 firearm and from which a firearm may be readily as6 sembled’’; and 

7 (2) in paragraph (4)— 

8 (A) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of sub9 paragraph (A); 

10 (B) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of sub11 paragraph (B) and inserting a period; and 

12 (C) by striking subparagraph (C). 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,307
<SECURITIES>                                     5,736
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,790
<ALLOWANCES>                                       195
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,545
<PP&E>                                           1,856
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,730
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,713
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,730
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,516
<CGS>                                            4,106
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,345
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,839
<INCOME-TAX>                                       711
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,128
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.32
        

</TABLE>
PROMISSORY
NOTE

     

    
      	
              Borrowers:

            	
              PRIME
      ACQUISITION CORP.,

            


    

    with a
Registered Office at:

    
      Codan
Trust Company (Cayman) Ltd.,

    

    
      Cricket
Square, Hutchins Dr., PO box 2681,

    

    
      Grand
Cayman, KY1-1 111, Cayman Islands

    

     

    
      	
              Lender:

            	
              William
      Yu

            


    

     

    FOR VALUE RECEIVED, PRIME
ACQUISITION CORP. promises to pay to William Yu at such address as may be
provided in writing to the Company, the principal sum of fifty thousand
(550,000.00) USD. The principal pays no interest. Any unpaid principal are to be
paid in full on or before December 31st, 2010 or the date that the Company’s F-1
filing becomes Effective, whichever date comes first.

     

    FORM OF PAYMENT, Any check,
draft, Money Order, or other instrument given in payment of all or any portion
hereof may be accepted by the holder and handled in collection in the customary
manner, but the same shall not constitute payment hereunder or diminish any
rights of the holder hereof except to the extent that actual cash proceeds of
such instruments are unconditionally received by the payee and applied to this
indebtedness in the manner elsewhere herein provided.

     

    BINDING EFFECT, The covenants,
obligations and conditions herein contained shall be binding on and inure to the
benefit of the heirs, legal representatives, and assigns of the parties
hereto.

     

    PLACE FOR PAYMENT, Borrower
promises to pay to the order of Payee at the place for payment and according to
the terms for payment the principal amount plus interest at the rates stated
above. All unpaid amounts shall be due by the final scheduled payment
date.

     

    GOVERNING LAW, This Note shall
be governed, construed and interpreted by, through and under the Laws of the
State of California.

     

    EXECUTED
this 10th day of FEBRUARY, 2010.

     

    
      
        
          
            	/s/
      Diana Liu	 	/s/
      William Yu
	
                    Authorized
      Signatory

                    Prime
      Acquisition

                  	 	
                    William
      Yu
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 29, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 19, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 753 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov*, Docket Nos. MC2025-442, K2025-439.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-27886 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 172



## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I No. CR-14-683
ALBERT W. LIDDELL APPELLANT
V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered March 11, 2015
APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-2011-1018] HONORABLE RALPH WILSON, JR., JUDGE MOTION DENIED; REBRIEFING ORDERED RITA W. GRUBER, Judge In July 2011, Albert W. Liddell pleaded guilty to theft of property and was sentenced to eight years’ probation. In March 2014, the State filed a petition to revoke probation based upon allegations that Liddell had violated written conditions of the probation. A revocation hearing was held in the circuit court on April 30, 2014. The circuit court, upon finding that Liddell had inexcusably violated several conditions, revoked probation and sentenced him to thirty-six months’ imprisonment and thirty-six months’ suspended imposition of sentence.
Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4- 3(k)(1), Liddell’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief and a motion to withdraw asserting that there are no nonfrivolous arguments that would support an appeal. Liddell was notified of his right to file a list of pro se points for reversal, but he has not done so. We order rebriefing because counsel’s brief does not comply with our rule’s requirements. A request to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is wholly without meritCite as 2015 Ark. App. 172

shall be accompanied by a brief with an argument section containing “a list of all rulings adverse to the defendant . . . on all objections, motions and requests made by either party with an explanation as to why each ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal.” Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1) (2014). The brief’s abstract shall contain “material parts” of the transcripts, including information “essential for the appellate court to . . . decide the issues on appeal.” Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5) (2014). In appeals from criminal convictions, a no-merit brief that omits even a single adverse ruling requires rebriefing. Sartin v. State , 2010 Ark. 16, 362 S.W.3d 877. The only adverse rulings listed in counsel’s brief are an evidentiary ruling and the circuit court’s decision to revoke probation. Our review of the record reveals at least one additional adverse ruling, which occurred when the circuit court pronounced sentence at the conclusion of the hearing. This was in contravention of Liddell’s request that probation be left intact or that sentencing be deferred to a later date. We also note a factual error in counsel’s brief: the statement of the case indicates that the State filed its petition to revoke a year before Liddell was put on probation. We order counsel to file a substituted brief, abstract, and addendum within fifteen days from the date of this opinion. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3) (2014). We encourage counsel, before rebriefing, to review our rules and the record to ensure that no additional deficiencies are present. Motion denied; rebriefing ordered. V IRDEN and G LOVER , JJ., agree. C. Brian Williams , for appellant. No response.
2
Order entered August 26 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 20 - 00516 - CV ANDREW CHOI , SN DALLAS - AMERICAN CORPORATION, AND NEHA GUPTA, AND AVINASH GUPTA, Appellant s V. BRIXMOR HOLDINGS 12 SPE, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 18 - 18475

ORDER Before the Court is the August 24, 2020 unopposed motion of appellants SN Dallas

- American Corporat ion, Neha Gupta, and Avinash Gupta for an extension of time to file their brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to September 25, 2020

. /s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1804 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 3-year recovery 

period for all race horses. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 30, 2017 

Mr. BARR 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 allow a 

3-year recovery period for all race horses. 

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 ‘‘Race Horse Cost Re5 covery Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. THREE-YEAR DEPRECIATION FOR RACE HORSES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 168(e)(3)(A)(i) of the In8 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as fol9 lows: 

10 ‘‘(i) any race horse,’’. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1804 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

3 December 31, 2016. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Response of Rubber Insulation Materials to Monoenergetic Electron Irradiations (NUREG/CR-3532,SAND83-2098)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-3532 (PDF - 1.76 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed**: November 1983****Date Published****: November 1983 

**Prepared by:** W.H. Buckalew, F.J. Wyant, G.J. Lockwood Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque. New Mexico 87185 Operated by Sandia Corporation for the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract No. DE-AC04-76DP00789 

**Prepared for:** Electrical Engineering Branch  Division of Engineering Technology  Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  Washington, DC 20555-0001

Under Interagency Agreement DOE 40-550-75

NRC FIN A-1051

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The electron charge disposition in ethylene-propylene rubber (EPR) insulation specimens irradiated with monoenergetic electrons has been investigated. Studied was charge disposition in slab and cylindrical (cable) geometries. For each geometry, charge behavior was observed as a function of environment, electron energy, and surface termination. Under certain conditions, charge was accumulated and spontaneous breakdown did occur during irradiation in the vacuum environment; however, no evidence of breakdown was observed during ambient air exposures. Based on these experiments, it is concluded that electron charge buildup and breakdown is not apt to occur in EPR rubber insulation exposed to electrons from a LOCA radiation environment provided that the insulation is in contact with an ionized medium. The results can probably be applied to other organics and it appears that the LOCA beta spectra need not be precisely duplicated in insulation-radiation qualification tests.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Kensey Nash Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph W. Kaufmann, 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:

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: February 9, 2007 |  | /s/ Joseph W. Kaufmann 
|                       |  | Joseph W. Kaufmann     
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer