alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ASSUMPTION OF SEVERANCE AGREEMENT



 Exhibit 10.7 
  

			
	 Commonwealth Industries, Inc.
 500 West Jefferson Street
 PNC Plaza – 19th Floor
 Louisville, Kentucky
40202-2823
 Phone: 502-588-8204
 Fax: 502.588.3923
 Email: steve.demetriou@ciionline.com
	  	 Steven J. Demetriou
 President and Chief
Executive Officer


  
 

 
  
 October 11,2004 
  
 Via Facsimile 972-401-7345 
  
 Mr. John Balkcom, Chairman 
 IMCO Recycling Inc. 
 5215 North O’Connor Boulevard, Suite 1500 
 Irvin, Texas 75039 
  
 Re: Assumption of Change in Control Agreements 
  
 Dear John, 
  
 Further to our recent conversation, by your execution below, IMCO hereby agrees that effective on and as of the date of the closing (“Closing”) of the merger between Commonwealth and IMCO as provided in the
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of June 16, 2004, IMCO shall assume all the obligations under those certain Severance Agreements by and between Commonwealth and the following key executives, each made as of the date opposite their names:

  

			
	 Steve Demetriou
	  	June 10, 2004
	 Michael D. Friday
	  	June 16, 2004
	 Sean Stack
	  	June 16, 2004
	 Christopher R: Clegg
	  	June 25, 2004
	 John Wasz
	  	February 1, 1996, amended as of September 7, 2004

  
 Each of the officers has executed an
agreement providing, among other things, that the Merger shall not be a “change in control” event under the Severance Agreements referenced above. Copies of such agreements are attached hereto. 
  
 In addition, IMCO hereby agrees that effective on and as of the Closing, IMCO shall assume
the obligations contained in that certain letter agreement between Commonwealth and John Wasz dated September 7, 2004, a copy of which is attached hereto. 
  
 If the Closing does not occur by January 31, 2004, then IMCO’s obligations under this letter agreement will terminate, unless extended by our mutual agreement.

  









 Please indicate your acceptance of and agreement to the foregoing by signing a copy of this letter in the space provided
below. 
  

	
	 Sincerely,

	
	 /s/ Steven J. Demetriou

	 Steven J. Demetriou


  
 ACCEPTED AND AGREED: 
 This 11th day of October 2004

  

			
	 IMCO Recycling, Inc.

		
	 By
	 	/s/ John Balkcom
	 	 	John Balkcom, Chairman
### NUMBER 13 - 13 - 00 636 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ EX PARTE DIANA CAMPO S

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 197th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez , Garza, and Benavides Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the 197th District Court of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number 2013

- DCL

- 5497

- C . Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal without prejudice on grounds she no longer wishes to pursue the appeal

. A certificate of conference was requested but not filed. More than ten days
ha s passed since the filing of the motion and no response has been filed by appellee. The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant ’ s unopposed motion to dismis s the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See2

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Appellant ’ s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. There being no agreement in the motion regarding costs, pursuant to Rule 42.1(d ) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, all costs are taxed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request,

no m otion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

P ER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 17th day of July , 20 14

.
#### In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Laura Susan Greenstein, Admitted on June 19, *2351989, at a Term of the Appellate Division, First Department.

[771 NYS2d 636]

—Respondent reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof. No opinion. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Ellerin and Williams, JJ. [See 240 AD2d 106.]
# C_2014212EN.01002901.xml

| 7.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014 — Melt Water v OHIM (NUEVA)

(Case T-61/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark NUEVA - Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed - Ambiguity in a language version - Uniform interpretation - Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure - Excusable error - Obligations of care and diligence))

2014/C 212/35

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Research and Production Company ‘Melt Water’ UAB (Klaipėda, Lithuania) (represented by: V. Viešūnaitė and J. Stucka, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2012 (Case R 1794/2012-4) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign NUEVA as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Research and Production Company ‘Melt Water’ UAB. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Research and Production Company ‘Melt Water’ UAB.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.

1

---
#### In the Matter of J.R. Rockland County Department of Social Services, Respondent, v Paul B., Appellant.

[56 NYS3d 464]

Appeal by the father from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Rockland County (Sherri L. Eisenpress, J.), dated June 30, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a dispositional hearing, terminated the father’s parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child to the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review so much of an order of fact-finding of that court dated March 28, 2016, as, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the father permanently neglected the child.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly determined that the Rockland County Department of Social Services established by clear and convincing evidence that, despite its diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship, the father permanently neglected the subject child by failing to plan for the future of the child for a period of at least one year following the child’s placement into foster care *(see Matter of Selena R.M. [Theresa M.K.],*147 AD3d 953, 954 [2017]) and that terminating the father’s parental rights and freeing the child for adoption would be in the child’s best interests *(see Matter of Tanay R.S. [Tanya M.],*147 AD3d 858, 860 [2017]; *Matter of Malachi P. [Georgette P.],*142 AD3d 883, 884 [2016]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Austin, J.R, Hinds-Radix, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                          EAGLE-PICHER HOLDINGS, INC.

             SUBSIDIARIES OF EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC. ("EPI")

Cincinnati Industrial Machinery Sales Company [Ohio]
Daisy Parts, Inc. [Michigan]
Eagle-Picher Acceptance Corporation [Ohio]
Eagle-Picher Development Company, Inc. [Delaware]
     EPMR Corporation [Michigan]
Eagle-Picher Far East, Inc. [Delaware]
Eagle-Picher Funding Corporation [Delaware]
Eagle-Picher, Inc. [Virgin Islands]
Eagle-Picher Industries of Canada Limited [Canada]
Eagle-Picher Industries Europe B.V. [Netherlands]
     Eagle-Picher Automotive GmbH [Germany]
     Eagle-Picher UK Limited [England and Wales]
          Eagle-Picher Hillsdale Limited [England and Wales]
     Eagle-Picher Wolverine GmbH [Germany]
          Eagle-Picher Technologies GmbH [Germany]
Eagle-Picher Minerals, Inc. [Nevada]
     Eagle-Picher Minerals International S.A.R.L. [France]
          Eagle-Picher Minerals Europe GmbH & Co. KG [Germany]
          Eagle-Picher Minerals Europe Verwaltungs- und Beteiligungs GmbH
[Germany]
Eagle-Picher Technologies, LLC [Delaware]
     Eagle-Picher Energy Products Corp. [Canada]
EPTEC, S.A. de C.V. [Mexico]
Equipos de Acuna, S.A. de C.V. [Mexico]*
Hillsdale Tool & Manufacturing Co. [Michigan]
     Carpenter Enterprises Limited [Michigan]

[ ] Brackets indicate state or country of incorporation and do not form part of
    corporate name.

*   Equipos de Acuna, S.A. de C.V. was sold to the purchaser of the Company's
    former Construction Equipment Division as of December 14, 2001.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 EAGLEPICHER HOLDINGS, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES
EXCLUDING EAGLEPICHER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 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 Annual Report of EaglePicher Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ended November 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas R. Pilholski, Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial 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/ Thomas R. Pilholski
    
    Date: March 14, 2005Thomas R. Pilholski, Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2769 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2769

 To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to permit the Council 
     of the District of Columbia to enact laws with respect to the 
   organization and jurisdiction of the District of Columbia courts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 15, 2019

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to permit the Council 
     of the District of Columbia to enact laws with respect to the 
   organization and jurisdiction of the District of Columbia courts.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia Courts Home 
Rule Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO ENACT LAWS WITH 
              RESPECT TO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS.

    Section 602(a) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (sec. 1-
206.02(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking paragraph (4).
                                 <all>
```
# C_2013284EN.01000402.xml

| 28.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/4

---

Action brought on 2 August 2013 — KO-Invest v OHIM — Kraft Foods Schweiz (Milkoshake For Active People)

(Case T-399/13)

2013/C 284/05

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: KO-Invest Sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding GmbH (Zug, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 May 2013 (Case R 720/2012-4) in so far as it refuses registration of ‘Milkoshake For Active People’ as a Community trade mark for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 May 2013 (Case R 720/2012-4) in so far as it refuses registration of ‘Milkoshake For Active People’ as a Community trade mark for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32;

| — | amend the contested decision by registering the mark for all of the goods applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the contested decision by registering the mark for all of the goods applied for;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark containing the word element ‘Milkoshake For Active People’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade marks No 31 369 and No 31 344, international registration (IR) No 163 135 and the well-known trade mark ‘MILKA’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1)

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 78 of 24.3.2009, p. 1).

1

---
Exhibit 99.2



Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002)



I, John D. Ratliff, the Corporate Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of Acterna Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:



|(1) |  | the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003 (the Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Dated: June 30, 2003



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/    John D.
Ratliff                              
|John D. Ratliff                                     
|Corporate Vice President and Chief Financial 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.
<PAGE>
                                                        EXHIBIT 99

Statement Pursuant to Section 1350(a) of title 18, United States Code


The undersigned, Peter R. Kann and Christopher W. Vieth, certify that:

(1)  The Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dow Jones & Company, Inc. (the
     "Company") for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2002 (the "Form
      10-K"), which is being filed today with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

(2)  The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in
     all material respects, the financial condition and results of
     operations of the Company.



/s/Peter R. Kann
------------------------
Peter R. Kann
Chief Executive Officer,
Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Dated:  March 3, 2003



/s/Christopher W. Vieth
-----------------------------
Christopher W. Vieth
Chief Financial Officer,
Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Dated:March 3, 2003
No. 10-6699.

#### Ernest Miller, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 1057, 131 S. Ct. 659,

178 L. Ed. 2d 472,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9241.

November 29, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris denied, and petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Supreme Court of California dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
No. 10-354.

#### APC Acquisition Corporation, Inc., Petitioner v. Atlantech, Inc.

562 U.S. 1045, 131 S. Ct. 602,

178 L. Ed. 2d 436,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8833.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
No. 10-6073.

#### Fredy O. Villanueva-Moran, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 1125, 131 S. Ct. 854,

178 L. Ed. 2d 585,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9600.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 970, 131 S. Ct. 479, 178 L. Ed. 2d 303, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7980.
## The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

NATHAN P. WILSON 300 DEXTER AVENUE LYNN DEVAUGHN

CLERK MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104

- 3741 ASSISTANT CLERK

TELEPHONE 334

- 229

- 0733

July 19, 2024

CL

- 2024

- 0003

E.W. v. Houston County Department of Human Resources (Appeal from

Houston Juvenile Court: JU

- 23

- 381.01).

ORDER

You are hereby notified that the following action was taken in the

above cause by the Court of Civil Appeals:

Application for Rehearing Overruled. No opinion written on

rehearing.

Moore, P.J., and Edwards, Hanson, Fridy, and Lewis, JJ., concur.

Nathan P. Wilson, Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                                             December __, 2004

North Country Financial Corporation
Board of Directors
Manistique, Michigan

Dear Board Members:

      In connection with the proposed transactions contemplated pursuant to that
certain Stock Purchase Agreement dated August 10, 2004, by and between the North
Country Financial Corporation ("NCFC") and NCFC Recapitalization, LLC (the
"Stock Purchase Agreement") and that certain Employment Agreement dated August
10, 2004, by and between NCFC and me (the "Employment Agreement"), I hereby
acknowledge and agree that the Effective Date of the Employment Agreement will
be the later of the (i) the Closing (as defined in the Stock Purchase Agreement)
of the transactions provided for in the Stock Purchase Agreement, and (ii) the
date NCFC receives Regulatory Approval to enter into the Employment Agreement.

      I further acknowledge and agree that notwithstanding anything in the
Employment Agreement to the contrary, a Change in Control shall not be deemed to
have occurred upon the consummation of any of the transactions contemplated by
the Stock Purchase Agreement, including, without limitation, the sale of shares
to the Investors (as defined in the Stock Purchase Agreement), the management
changes and the reconstitution of the Board of Directors, whether such
transactions occur before, at, or after the Effective Date of the Employment
Agreement.

                                                 Very truly yours,
                                                 _______________________________

Acknowledged and Agreed:

North Country Financial Corporation

By: ________________________________
      Its:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-21153 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

THOMAS EDWARD HALEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-96-CR-120

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Thomas Edward Haley appeals his sentence after pleading

guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1). Haley argues that he was not convicted of a crime

punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year because

the state dropped the enhancement charges and convicted him of an

offense that had a maximum sentence of not more than one year. 

He contends that he thus did not have a prior violent felony

conviction that was punishable by a term of imprisonment in
No. 96-21153

-2-

excess of one year as required by U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) and

as defined in § 4B1.2, comment. (n.3). “`Prior felony

conviction’ means a prior adult federal or state conviction for

an offense punishable by death or imprisonment for a term

exceeding one year, regardless of whether such offense is

specifically designated as a felony and regardless of the actual

sentence imposed.” § 4B1.2, comment.(n.3) (emphasis added). 

Haley’s prior conviction was for the offense of retaliation, a

felony in the third degree punishable by imprisonment for a term

of 2-10 years. The district court properly assessed Haley’s base

offense level at 20.

Haley argues that he did not have a prior felony conviction

under § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) because his conviction for retaliation was

after the commission of the firearms offense. Haley’s argument

is foreclosed by United States v. Gooden, 116 F.3d 721, 724-25

(5th Cir. 1997), in which this court held that if the sentence

for the prior conviction is imposed prior to sentencing on the

firearms offense such that it qualifies for criminal history

points, it constitutes a “prior felony conviction” for purposes

of determining the base offense level under § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A).

AFFIRMED.