alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Scottish Re Group Limited (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Scott E. Willkomm, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
               operations of the Company.

/s/ Scott E. Willkomm
---------------------

Scott E. Willkomm
President and Chief Executive Officer
August 9, 2005

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Scottish Re Group Limited and will be retained by Scottish Re
Group Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31964-31969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15491]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Revised Non-Foreign Overseas Per Diem Rates

AGENCY: DoD, Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee.

ACTION: Notice of revised non-foreign overseas per diem rates.

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

SUMMARY: The Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee is 
publishing Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 200. This 
bulletin lists revisions in the per diem rates prescribed for U.S. 
Government

[[Page 31965]]

employees for official travel in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the 
Northern Mariana Islands and Possessions of the United States. AEA 
changes announced in Bulletin Number 194 remain in effect. Bulletin 
Number 200 is being published in the Federal Register to assure that 
travelers are paid per diem at the most current rates.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 1998.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document gives notice of revisions in 
per diem rates prescribed by the Per Diem Travel and Transportation 
Allowance Committee for non-foreign areas outside the continental 
United States. It supersedes Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin 
Number 199. Distribution of Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletins by 
mail was discontinued. Per Diem Bulletins published periodically in the 
Federal Register now constitute the only notification of revisions in 
per diem rates to agencies and establishments outside the Department of 
Defense. For more information or questions about per diem rates, please 
contact your local travel office. The text of the Bulletin follows:

    Dated: June 5, 1998.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5000-04-M

[[Page 31966]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JN98.004



[[Page 31967]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JN98.005



[[Page 31968]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JN98.006



[[Page 31969]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JN98.007



[FR Doc. 98-15491 Filed 6-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 500-04-C
No. 09-1432.

#### Sabel H. Bbela, Petitioner v. Microsoft Corporation.

562 U.S. 833, 131 S. Ct. 127,

178 L. Ed. 2d 33,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6594.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, denied.

*34Same case below, 150 Wash. App. 1003.
#### Logue v. W.C.A.B.(Com. Dept. of Transp.)111

12/28/2015

548 EAL (2015)

111

. Justice EAKIN did not participate in the decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Cmwlth., 119 A.3d 1116
No. 09-11172.

#### Robert Servin, Petitioner v. E. K. McDaniel, Warden.

562 U.S. 865, 131 S. Ct. 153,

178 L. Ed. 2d 91,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6332.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 368 Fed. Appx. 778.
No. 10-5382.

#### Kevin Leshawn Moore, aka Brandon Moore, Petitioner v. Texas.

562 U.S. 918, 131 S. Ct. 287,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6851.

178 L. Ed. 2d 189,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, denied.
DLA Distribution San Diego hosts Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support Commander
 
  By Navy Lt. Kimayah Fulcher, Military Liaison Officer, DLA Distribution San Diego
  Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Sand Diego, California, hosted Navy Rear Adm. Kenneth Epps, commander, Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support, for a tour of DDDC facilities. The purpose of the visit was to provide Epps with a familiarization brief, tour the facilities and discuss DDDC’s daily operations which provide support to Navy and Marine Corps warfighters. “I sincerely appreciate you all having me. This is about making sure you know, as a Navy customer and partner, we value what you do here and if there is anything I can do on my end to help in any way, please don’t hesitate in letting me know,” said Epps. "Admiral Epps’ visit reiterated the united link we play in supporting our largest customer base. We appreciated the opportunity to showcase our strategic partnership in support of F-35, H-1 optimized Top Owl, and our efforts to modernize our material processing center operation,” said Navy Capt. Kerri Yarbrough, commander, DDDC.
EX-10.1



 





Exhibit 10.1




Amendment to the

Layne Christensen Company

2006 Equity Incentive Plan




     This Amendment, dated May 31, 2006, by Layne Christensen Company (the
“Company”), amends the Layne Christensen Company 2006 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).



Recitals:




     A. On April 24, 2006, the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) approved the Plan,
subject to stockholder approval being received prior to April 23, 2007, in order to encourage
employees of the Company and its affiliates and subsidiaries to acquire a proprietary and vested
interest in the growth and performance of the Company.



     B. The Board desires to amend the Plan to prohibit the “repricing” of any stock options
granted under the Plan without Company stockholder approval.



     C. Pursuant to Section 14.1 of the Plan, the Board may amend the Plan.



Amendment:




     Now, Therefore, the Board hereby amends the Plan by replacing Section
6.2(i) in its entirety with the following Section 6.2(i):




	 	(i)	 	Adjustment of Options. Subject to the limitations set forth below and those contained
in Sections 6 and 14, the Committee may make any adjustment in the Option Exercise Price,
the number of Shares subject to, or the terms of, an outstanding Option and a subsequent
granting of an Option by amendment or by substitution of an outstanding Option. Such
amendment, substitution, or re-grant may result in terms and conditions (including Option
Exercise Price, number of Shares covered, vesting schedule or exercise period) that differ
from the terms and conditions of the original Option; provided, however, the Committee may
not, without stockholder approval (i) amend an Option to reduce its Option Exercise Price,
(ii) cancel an Option and regrant an Option with a lower Option Exercise Price than the
original Option Exercise Price of the cancelled Option, or (iii) take any other action
(whether in the form of an amendment, cancellation or replacement grant) that has the
effect of “repricing” an Option, as defined under applicable NASDAQ rules or the rules of
the established stock exchange or quotation system on which the Company Stock is then
listed or traded. The Committee also may not adversely affect the rights of any Option
Holder to previously granted Options without the consent of such Option Holder. If such
action is affected by the amendment, the effective date of such amendment shall be the date
of the original grant. Any adjustment, modification, extension or renewal of an Option
shall be effected such that the Option is either exempt from, or is compliant with, Code
section 409A.





     In Witness Whereof, the Company has caused this Amendment to be adopted by
its duly authorized officer as of the date first stated above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Layne Christensen Company 

 	 
	 	By:   /s/ A. B. Schmitt
 	 
	 	 	    Andrew B. Schmitt, President
Exhibit 32.1

     In connection with the Annual Report of Bishop Capital Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert E.
Thrailkill, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President 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 the best of my
knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and
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.

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

/s/  Robert E. Thrailkill
-----------------------------
     Robert E. Thrailkill
     Chairman of the Board,
     Chief Executive Officer and
     President


August 20, 2003
#### Theus, Matter of, v Klein

2d Dept: 143 AD3d 984 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied
#### Com. v. Fuller 9

05/03/2016

951 MAL (2015)

9

. Justice WECHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 489
No. 10-5307.

#### Jean J. Merilien, Petitioner v. William Danforth, Warden.

562 U.S. 914, 131 S. Ct. 274,

178 L. Ed. 2d 181,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7070.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# Virtual LESO seminar is a success

/ Published Sept. 20, 2021
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
The Law Enforcement Support Office hosted a virtual seminar for law enforcement agencies who participate in the 1033 program as well as governor appointed, state coordinators.

Annual LESO conferences are mandated by law. Due to the continuing pandemic conditions, this year’s conference was held in a virtual format but that did not stop the participants from enjoying the benefits of a highly informative set of briefings and presentations.

“We got a lot of good feedback where they complimented us on the conference, [and said] it was well organized,“ said Brett Johnson, LESO branch chief. “We received several emails thanking us for putting on the conference and that it went well.”

The LESO program allows participating LEAs the ability to acquire certain excess Department of Defense property that would otherwise be destroyed. LEAs review DOD inventories online and submit requests.

In order to facilitate this program, governors appoint coordinators and those state coordinators assign LEA points of contacts that law enforcement agencies appoint who oversee program participation. An annual seminar geared especially towards these select individuals helps to review aspects of the program to ensure guidelines are properly understood and followed by participating agencies.

“The audience primarily is the state coordinators and the state points of contacts,” said Johnson. “With the current situation of COVID, all of the presentations were sent to the state coordinators and state points of contact so that they could follow along.”

Around the nation, there are more than 8,000 federal, state and local LEAs enrolled in the LESO program.

                LESO Summit                            DLA Disposition Services Director Michael Cannon addresses participants of a Law Enforcement Support Office seminar being held within the Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center in Battle Creek, Michigan.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: DLA Disposition ServicesVIRIN: 210615-D-AU600-202
exv10w3



 





Exhibit No. 10.3




LTIP Stock Units




FY 2006 Award



Dear ___:




     You have been granted an Award as of May ___, 2006 of ___units of Deferred Stock under the
Centex Corporation Long Term Incentive Plan (as such plan may be amended from time to time, the
“Plan”), giving you the right to receive a Payout of an equivalent number of Shares of the common
stock of Centex Corporation (the “Company”) on May ___, 2013, provided you are still employed by
the Company or an Affiliate. This Award will vest at the rate of 33-1/3% per year on each of March
31, 2007, March 31, 2008 and March 31, 2009. The amounts and dates are shown below:



	 	 	 	 	 
	___shares on 03/31/2007
	 	___shares on 03/31/2008
	 	___shares on 03/31/2009






     As described in the Plan, under certain circumstances an early Payout may occur. For
example, if you so elect in the form and manner prescribed by the Administrator, Payout will occur
when each portion of the Award vests, subject to your subsequent revocation of the timing of Payout
and substitution of a new Payout election during any subsequent calendar year. Conversely, if for
any other reason you cease to be employed by the Company or any of its Affiliates, in most cases
you will forfeit any portion of this Award that has not vested as of your Termination Date and,
unless discharged for cause, you will receive a Payout of the then vested portion of this Award, as
provided in the Plan.



     The Company may cancel and revoke this Award and/or replace it with a revised award at any
time if the Company determines, in its good faith judgment, that this Award was granted in error or
that this Award contains an error. In the event of such determination by the Company, and written
notice thereof to you at your business or home address, all of your rights and all of the Company’s
obligations as to any unvested portion of this Award shall immediately terminate. If the Company
replaces this Award with a revised award, then you will have all of the benefits conferred under
the revised award, effective as of such time as the revised award goes into effect.



     This Award is subject to the Plan, and the Plan will govern where there is any inconsistency
between the Plan and this Award. The provisions of the Plan are also the provisions of this Award,
and all terms, provisions and definitions set forth in the Plan are incorporated into this Award
and made a part of this Award for all purposes. Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined
in the Plan have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan. A copy of the Plan is available
to you upon request to the Law Department during the term of this Award.



     This Award has been signed in duplicate by Centex Corporation and delivered to you, and (when
you sign below) has been accepted by you effective as of May ___, 2006.



	 	 	 
	ACCEPTED

	 	CENTEX CORPORATION
	as of May ___, 2006
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	[Name]

	 	[Name]
	 

	 	[Title]
#### American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, et al., Respondents, v Motivated Security Services, Inc., Appellant.

[48 NYS3d 591]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered on or about August 16, 2016, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although, in support of its motion to dismiss, defendant demonstrated that plaintiff SBF is not an intended third-party beneficiary of defendant’s security contract with a nonparty *(see generally Fourth Ocean Putnam Corp. v Interstate Wrecking Co.,*66 NY2d 38, 43-45 [1985]; *see also Bernal v Pinkerton’s, Inc.,*52 AD2d 760 [1st Dept 1976], *affd*41 NY2d 938 [1977]), plaintiffs’ complaint, as supplemented by the affidavit of SBF’s president *(see Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]), sufficiently alleges a cause of action for negligence. In particular, plaintiff sufficiently alleges that SBF detrimentally relied upon defendant’s performance of its contractual duties *(see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs.,*98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]). While defendant contends that the security contracts did not require it to patrol the lot where the subject crane was stored, the documents do not conclusively establish that its responsibilities were so limited *(see Leon,*84 NY2d at 88). Further, the complaint and affidavit adequately show that plaintiffs had “actual knowledge” of the security contracts, as required to establish detrimental reliance *(Aiello v Burns Intl. Sec. Servs. Corp.,*110 AD3d 234, 246 [1st Dept 2013]).

The motion court properly considered the out-of-state affidavit of SBF’s president, even though it lacks a certificate of conformity (CPLR 2309 [c]). The lack of such certification is not a fatal defect and the irregularity may be corrected later *(see Matapos Tech. Ltd. v Compania Andina de Comercio Ltda,*68 AD3d 672, 673 [1st Dept 2009]; CPLR 2001).

Concur — Torn, J.P., Acosta, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kahn, JJ.
# ORICINAt.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No.DA 20-0465 SIEBEN RANCH COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff and Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) RANDALL G.ADAMS,a/k/a ) RANDYADAMS,aik/a RAY ) ADAMS;and LEE McDonald, ) ) Defendants and Appellants. ) ) ORDER



# FILED NOV 1 9 2020 Bowen GreenwoOCI Clerk of Supreme Court Štate nf Ninntann Defendant and Appellant pursuant to rule 26(1), M.R.App.P., moves for an extension of time in which to file and serve his opening brief in this matter and there being no objection from Plaintiff and Appellee; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant and Appellant is granted an extension of time until January 4,2021,in which to file and serve his openingbrief in this matter. 11/19/2020
Case Number: DA 20-0465The Clerk is directed to mail true copies of this order to 

## an

counsel ofrecord. DRIED this day of November,2020.
For the Court,
Exhibit 10.17

                 FIRST AMENDMENT TO LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT

         THIS AMENDMENT TO LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT is made on November 10,
2004 and amends that certain Loan and Security Agreement dated July 6, 2004, by
and between HEALTHCARE QUALITY SOLUTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation (the
"Borrower"), and STANFORD VENTURE CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation
(the "Lender").

         WHEREAS, the Loan and Security Agreement provides for the aggregate
availability of up to $1,600,000;

         WHEREAS, under the Loan and Security Agreement the increase in
availability on November 10, 2004 is subject to the Borrower achieving a
consolidated EBITDA of $50,000 or better during the three months ended September
30, 2004 (the "EBITDA Requirement");

         WHEREAS, Lender has agreed to waive the EBITDA Requirement;

         NOW THEREFORE, Lender and Borrower agree to amend the Loan and Security
Agreement as follows:

1. Waiver of EBITDA Requirement. The Lender hereby agrees waive the EBITDA
Requirement.

2. Effectiveness of Loan and Security Agreement. All terms and conditions
provided in the Loan and Security Agreement not otherwise amended herein shall
remain in full force and effect as provided in the Loan and Security Agreement.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Addendum has been duly executed on the day and
year specified above.

BORROWER:

HEALTHCARE QUALITY SOLUTIONS, INC.

/s/ B.M. Milvain
-----------------------
B.M. Milvain, President


LENDER:

STANFORD VENTURE CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC.

/s/ James M. Davis
-------------------------
James M. Davis, President
<Page>

                                                               EXHIBIT 10.39

                          CHASE CORPORATION

                           Amendment Number 1
                                   to
           Employees' Supplemental Pension and Savings Plan

    This Amendment dated a of June 29, 2001 is the first amendment to the
Chase Corporation Employees' Supplemental Pension and Savings Plan (the
"Plan"). Section 2.03 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read
as follows:

"2.03 "COMPENSATION" means the total compensation (including overtime,
commissions and bonus) payable to an Employee by the Employer and reportable
to the federal government for income tax purposes on Form W-2, or any form
prescribed by the Internal Revenue Service to take its place. Compensation
shall also include disability payments and such amounts as shall be
contributed pursuant to the Employee's elections pursuant to Section 401(k)
of the Code, and amounts treated as employer contributions pursuant to the
Employee's election under section 125 of the Code."

    This Amendment shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and
governed by, the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It shall take
effect as an instrument under seal.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Chase Corporation has caused this instrument to be
executed on its behalf this 29th day of June, 2001.

                                 CHASE CORPORATION

                                 By: /s/ EVERETT CHADWICK
                                    ---------------------
                                     Treasurer & CFO

Attest:

-----------------------
2016-1778.

#### Grimmer v. Shirilla.

Cuyahoga App. No. 103921, 2016-Ohio-5423.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          75,015
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,364,757
<ALLOWANCES>                                    55,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,799,910
<PP&E>                                       2,756,137
<DEPRECIATION>                                 610,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,748,522
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,522,486
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,801
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,088,364
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,748,522
<SALES>                                      6,299,396
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,299,396
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,108,013
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,071,403
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                15,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             172,597
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            391,539
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   391,539
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
        


</TABLE>
#### E.C., In re; N.C., In re 51

08/09/2016

405 MAL (2016)

51

. Justice MUNDY did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied
#### Com. v. Edmunds 7

05/10/2016

712 EAL (2015)

7

. Justice DONOHUE did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 135 A.3d 647