alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit 10(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 42 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 033-25990) pertaining to Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account C, which is incorporated by reference into Post-Effective Amendment No. 43, and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 30, 2012, with respect to the consolidated financial statements The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) March 30, 2012, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account C.







/s/ Ernst & Young LLP









Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


March 30, 2012
No. 11-7341.

#### Antonio McReynolds, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1128, 132 S. Ct. 1041,

181 L. Ed. 2d 766,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 48.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 442 Fed. Appx. 772.
China Green Energy Industries, Inc.: Exhibit 10.52 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.52

Guaranty Obligations Pre-maturity Covenants between the Parties
Dispute Resolution Validity Acknowledgments by the Guarantors Summary of
Guaranty Contract of RMB 3,7000,000, with a term of 2 years from January 11,2012
to January 10,2014, between Changzhou Kaikai Lighting Co., Ltd, and Jiangsu
Wujin Rural Commercial Bank, guaranteed by Changzhou City Wujin Best Electronic
Cables Co., Ltd., YaoQin, and WangKai.
Montana Twentieth Judicial District Court. County of Sanders.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- JACK JOHN GLOVER, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-15-034

DECISION

On April 26,2016, the Court sentenced the Defendant to the Montana State Prison for twenty-five (25) years, none suspended, for the offense of Count I: Incest, a Felony, in violation of §45-5-507, MCA. The Court granted credit for time served from June 11, 2015 to July 14, 2015, and from March 23, 2016 to April 26, 2016, for a total of sixty-eight (68) days. The Defendant was ordered to register as a Tier II, Moderate Risk to Reoffend Sexual Offender. The Defendant was ordered to have no contact with the victim. The Court ordered that the Defendant be ineligible for parole until he completed Phases I and II of the sex offender program at Montana State Prison; The Court further ordered that the Defendant have a parole restriction on the first half of his sentence. The Court ordered that Count II: Incest and Count III: Incest be dismissed.

*107Done in open Court this 17th day of November, 2016.

DATED this 8th day of December, 2016.

On November 17, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter “the Division”).

The Defendant appeared by Vision Net from the Crossroads Correctional Center and was represented by Brent Getty of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The Defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Division. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence is AFFIRMED.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Brad Newman, Member and Hon. Kathy Seeley, Member.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.8.1


                              AAi.FosterGrant, Inc.

                                  AMENDMENT TO

                            1996 INCENTIVE STOCK PLAN

           WHEREAS, AAi.FosterGrant, Inc. (the "Company") desires to amend the
provisions of the Company's 1996 Incentive Stock Plan (the "Plan") to reflect an
increase in the maximum number of Shares for which awards may be granted under
the Plan; and

           WHEREAS, under Section 16 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the
Company, may amend the Plan to increase the maximum number of Shares for which
options may be granted under the Plan, provided that such amendment shall not
become effective until the approval of the shareholders; and

           WHEREAS, the Board of Directors and Shareholders of the Company have
each approved the amendment to increase the maximum number of Shares for which
awards may be granted under the Plan;

           NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows:

           1. That Section 2 of the Plan be amended by substituting the number
"88,000" for "50,000" in the second sentence thereof to increase the maximum
number of Shares for which awards may be granted under the Plan.

           2. All other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and
effect and are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed.

           IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to the 1996
Incentive Stock Plan to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of the
13th day of May, 1999.

                                             AAi.FosterGrant, Inc.

                                             By: /s/ Gerald F. Cerce
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 President

Attest:

/s/ Stephen J. Carlotti
------------------------------
Secretary
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 466 

To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to delegate to the Under Secretary of 

Commerce for International Trade the functions relating to trade adjustment assistance for firms, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to delegate to the Under 

Secretary of Commerce for International Trade the functions relating to trade adjustment assistance for firms, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR AD4 JUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS. 

5 Section 256(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 

6 2346(b)) is amended by striking ‘‘2007’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘2012’’. 
2 

•HR 466 IH 

1 SEC. 2. DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS TO CARRY OUT THE 

2 ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS PRO3 GRAM. 

4 (a) DELEGATION.—Section 256 of the Trade Act of 

5 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2346) is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating subsections (a) through (c) 

7 as subsections (b) through (d), respectively; 

8 (2) by inserting before subsection (b) (as redes9 ignated) the following: 

10 ‘‘(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Sec11 retary shall delegate all functions of the Secretary under 

12 this chapter to the Under Secretary of Commerce for 

13 International Trade.’’; and 

14 (3) in the heading, by striking ‘‘TO SMALL

15 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION’’. 

16 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The item relating 

17 to section 256 in the table of contents of the Trade Act 

18 of 1974 is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘256. Delegation of functions; authorization of appropriations.’’. 

19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

20 this section shall take effect 60 days after the date of the 

21 enactment of this Act. 

Æ
SALARY TABLE 2014-GS 

INCORPORATING THE 1% GENERAL SCHEDULE INCREASE 

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2014 

Hourly Basic (B) Rates by Grade and Step 

Hourly Overtime (O) Rates by Grade and Step 

Grade B/O Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 

1 B $ 8.62 $ 8.90 $ 9.19 $ 9.48 $ 9.76 $ 9.93 $ 10.21 $ 10.50 $ 10.51 $ 10.78 

O 12.93 13.35 13.79 14.22 14.64 14.90 15.32 15.75 15.77 16.17 

2 B 9.69 9.92 10.24 10.51 10.63 10.94 11.25 11.56 11.88 12.19 

O 14.54 14.88 15.36 15.77 15.95 16.41 16.88 17.34 17.82 18.29 

3 B 10.57 10.92 11.27 11.63 11.98 12.33 12.68 13.03 13.39 13.74 

O 15.86 16.38 16.91 17.45 17.97 18.50 19.02 19.55 20.09 20.61 

4 B 11.87 12.26 12.66 13.05 13.45 13.84 14.24 14.63 15.03 15.42 

O 17.81 18.39 18.99 19.58 20.18 20.76 21.36 21.95 22.55 23.13 

5 B 13.28 13.72 14.16 14.60 15.05 15.49 15.93 16.37 16.82 17.26 

O 19.92 20.58 21.24 21.90 22.58 23.24 23.90 24.56 25.23 25.89 

6 B 14.80 15.29 15.78 16.28 16.77 17.26 17.76 18.25 18.74 19.24 

O 22.20 22.94 23.67 24.42 25.16 25.89 26.64 27.38 28.11 28.86 

7 B 16.44 16.99 17.54 18.09 18.64 19.18 19.73 20.28 20.83 21.38 

O 24.66 25.49 26.31 27.14 27.96 28.77 29.60 30.42 31.25 32.07 

8 B 18.21 18.82 19.43 20.03 20.64 21.25 21.85 22.46 23.07 23.68 

O 27.32 28.23 29.15 30.05 30.96 31.88 32.78 33.23 33.23 33.23 

9 B 20.11 20.78 21.46 22.13 22.80 23.47 24.14 24.81 25.48 26.15 

O 30.17 31.17 32.19 33.20 33.23 33.23 33.23 33.23 33.23 33.23 

10 B 22.15 22.89 23.63 24.37 25.10 25.84 26.58 27.32 28.06 28.80 

O 33.23 33.23 33.23 33.23 33.23 33.23 33.23 33.23 33.23 33.23 

11 B 24.34 25.15 25.96 26.77 27.58 28.39 29.20 30.01 30.83 31.64 

O 33.23 33.23 33.23 33.23 33.23 33.23 33.23 33.23 33.23 33.23 

12 B 29.17 30.14 31.11 32.09 33.06 34.03 35.00 35.98 36.95 37.92 

O 33.23 33.23 33.23 33.23 33.23 34.03 35.00 35.98 36.95 37.92 

13 B 34.69 35.84 37.00 38.16 39.31 40.47 41.62 42.78 43.94 45.09 

O 34.69 35.84 37.00 38.16 39.31 40.47 41.62 42.78 43.94 45.09 

14 B 40.99 42.36 43.72 45.09 46.45 47.82 49.19 50.55 51.92 53.28 

O 40.99 42.36 43.72 45.09 46.45 47.82 49.19 50.55 51.92 53.28 

15 B 48.21 49.82 51.43 53.04 54.64 56.25 57.86 59.46 61.07 62.68 

O 48.21 49.82 51.43 53.04 54.64 56.25 57.86 59.46 61.07 62.68
No. 11-6692.

#### Kenneth D. Beverly, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1175, 132 S. Ct. 1140,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1013,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 676.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 1030, 132 S. Ct. 561, 181 L. Ed. 2d 416, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 8004.
# C_2016329EN.01000501.xml

| 7.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/5

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2016/C 329/05)

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

1

2.   Procedure

Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Tartaric acid | The People’s Republic of China | Anti-dumping duty | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 349/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 110, 24.4.2012, p. 3). | 25.4.2017 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

3

Tartaric acid

The People’s Republic of China

Anti-dumping duty

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 349/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 110, 24.4.2012, p. 3).

25.4.2017

---

(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

1

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

2

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.

3

---
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. DEVON DUC HAUNT JONES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-30226

D.C . No. 3:04-c r-00517-RE M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Jam e s A. R e dde n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 18, 2013 ** B e fore : TALLM AN, M . SM ITH, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. De von Duc ha

unt Jone s a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny i ng his 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(2) m o tion for re duc tion of se nte nc e . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED JUN 21 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Jone s c onte nds tha t he is e ligiblefor a

se nte nc e re duc tion be c a

use his Guide line range at se nte nc ing wa s c a lc ulate d unde r U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 a nd tha t range wa s subse que ntly

lowe re d by

Am e ndm e n t 750 to the

Se n te nc ing Guide line s. W e re vie wde novo whe the r a distric t c ourt ha s a

uthority to m odify

a se nte nc e unde r se c tion 3582(c )(2). Se e Unite d State s v . Ple asant , 704 F.3d 808, 810 (9th C ir. 2013). To de te rm ine whe the r a

se nte n c e re duc tion is wa

rran te d unde r se c tion 3582(c )(2), the c ourt m

ust c a lc ulate the Guide line s ra nge tha t would ha

ve be e n a pplic a ble to the de fe nda

nt if the am e ndm e nt ha d be e n in e ffe c t at the tim e the de fe nda n t wa s se n te nc e d. Se e U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.10(b)(1). Jone s is a c are e r offe nde r and, ha d the am e ndm e nt be e n in e ffe c t at his se nte nc ing, the a

pplic a ble Guide line s range would ha

ve be e n the c are e r offe nde r ran ge . Se e U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1(b). Tha t range is ide ntic a l to therange use d at his original se nte nc ing. The re fore , Am e ndm e nt 750 did not lowe r Jone s’ s a

pplic a ble Guide line s ran ge , a

n d he is ine l igible for a

se nte nc e re duc tion. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(2); U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.10 c m t. n.1(A); Unite d State

s v . W ate rs , 648 F.3d 1114, 1116-17 (9th C ir. 2011). In light of this disposition, we de c line to re a c h

Jone s’ s re m a ining c onte ntions. AFFIRM E D.
**
**Exhibit 34.40**

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

Managing Member 

Park Bridge Lender Services LLC 

New York, NY 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in theaccompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of 2018 Compliance by Park Bridge Lender Services LLC with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”), that Park Bridge Lender Services LLC (the “Company”)complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB (item 1122(d)) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018, excluding those criteria determined by managementand noted as not applicable (N/A) within Exhibit B to Management’s Report. The transactions covered by this report are only those transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trust advisor or operating advisor for the asset backedsecurities transactions (the “Platform”) identified in Management’s Report. Reference Exhibit A to Management’s Report for the transactions covered by this examination. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliancewith the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria based on our examination. 

We conducted our examination in accordance with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).Those standards require that we plan and perform theexamination to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the Company complied with the applicable servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d). Our examination included tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform,determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Ourprocedures were limited to the selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset backed transactionincluded in the Platform. Further an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the Company’s servicingactivities during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

In our opinion, management’sassertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit B to Management’s Report with respect to the transactions identified in Exhibit A to Management’s Report as of and for the yearended December 31, 2018, for the Platform, is fairly stated, in all material aspects. 

 

/s/ Katz, Sapper & Miller, LLP

New York, New York

February 20, 2019

 
1 

**
#### Newspaper Men’s Development Corporation, a Corporation, *Appellant,*v. E. C. Young, and Carrie E. Young, his Wife, or the Survivors Thereof, as Trustees; E. C. Young in his Own Right; J. B. Lawton, Jr.; A. Roy Daniels and Ames A. Barlow, *Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed April 29, 1926.

17. *B. Crawford,,*for Appellant;

17. *M. Murphy,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the *705decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and’the same is hereby'affirmed.

. Whitfield, P. J.', and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
ex10-4.htm



Exhibit 10.4




 


ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







THIS ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Addendum”), is entered into December 15, 2011, but made effective retroactive to November 16, 2011, by and between LiqTech NA, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Donald S. Debelak (the “Employee”).







RECITALS







WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee are parties to that certain employment agreement dated November 16, 2005 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 







WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee have mutually agreed to exercise the Second Option term of the Employment Agreement as described in Section 1.3 of the Employment Agreement; and 







WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee, as a condition to their mutual agreement to the Second Option term, have agreed to be bound by the terms of this Addendum.







NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above and the mutual covenants set forth below, the Company and the Employee agree that the Employment Agreement shall be modified as follows:









	 	
1.

	
Section 3.4 of the Employment Agreement shall be replaced with the following:














3.4 Termination by the Company Without Cause.  The Company may terminate the Employee’s employment without Cause upon twelve (12) months prior written notice to the Employee. 









	 	
2.

	
Section 3.5 of the Employment Agreement shall be replaced with the following:














3.5 Resignation by the Employee.  The Employee may terminate his employment upon six (6) months prior written notice to the Company (the “Resignation Notice Period”).








3.           Until further agreement between the Company and the Employee, the Employee’s annual salary described in Section 2.2 of the Employment Agreement shall be fixed at $162,000.00.











	 	
4.

	
A new Section 2.7 shall be added to the Employment Agreement, as follows:














2.7 Incentive Compensation.  The Employee shall receive additional yearly warrants based on LiqTech International, Inc.’s EBIT as established by its financial statements.  The number of warrants is equal to 0.15 EBIT divided by that company’s average share price during the ten (10) days before the publication of that company’s financial results.  One-third (1/3) of such warrants may be exercised immediately, one-third (1/3) after twelve (12) months, and one-third (1/3) after twenty-four (24) months. 


 




  





1











  











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties hereto execute this Addendum effective as of the date written in the preamble above.








	  	
COMPANY


	  	  
	  	
LIQTECH NA, INC.,


	  	
  a Delaware corporation


	  	  
	  	
By: 

	
/s/ Lasse Andreassen


	  	   	
Lasse Andreassen


	  	
Title: 

	
Director, on behalf of the Board of Directors


	  	  
	  	
EMPLOYEE


	  	  
	  	
/s/ Donald S. Debelak


	  	
Donald S. Debelak







 


 


2
No. 09-706.

#### Thomas Tusini, Petitioner v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, et al.

559 U.S. 939, 130 S. Ct. 1525,

176 L. Ed. 2d 114,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1248.

February 22, 2010.

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