alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.14

 

This DEED is made on the 24th day of November 2008

 

BETWEEN

 

(1)                                  Montpelier Reinsurance Ltd. of 94 Pitts Bay Road, Pembroke, Bermuda

 

(2)                                  Montpelier Re Holdings Ltd. of 94 Pitts Bay Road, Pembroke, Bermuda (“MRH”); and

 

(3)                                  Jonathan B. Kim of 3 Queen’s Cove, #B7, Pembroke, Bermuda (the “Employee”), together “the Parties”.

 

RECITALS

 

The Parties wish to amend the service agreement between MRE and the Employee dated November 30, 2004 (the “Service Agreement”) as set out herein.

 

1.              AMENDMENTS

 

1.1.           The defined term “Company” in the Service Agreement is hereby amended to refer in all instances to MRH

 

1.2.           These amendments will take effect from 24th November 2008 and except to the extent hereinabove set forth, the Service Agreement shall continue in full force and effect without change or modification.

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has executed this Deed as of the date first above written.

 

 

Executed as a deed by MONTPELIER REINSURANCE LTD. acting by:

 


	
Director
    	
 
    	
Director/Secretary
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/   Thomas G.S. Busher
    	
 
    	
/s/   Christopher L. Harris
    
	
Thomas G.S. Busher
    	
 
    	
Christopher L. Harris
    




 

 

Executed as a deed by MONTPELIER RE HOLDINGS LTD. acting by:

 

 


	
Director
    	
 
    	
Director/Secretary
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/   Thomas G.S. Busher
    	
 
    	
/s/   Christopher L. Harris
    
	
Thomas G.S. Busher
    	
 
    	
Christopher L. Harris
    




 

 

Executed as a deed by the Employee:


	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/   Jonathan B. Kim
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Jonathan B. Kim
    	
 
    	
 
    




 

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      37,889,074
<SECURITIES>                                26,901,656
<RECEIVABLES>                               26,942,383
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,595,616
<INVENTORY>                                  2,079,975
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            93,964,000
<PP&E>                                     184,746,422
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,210,710
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,507,918,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       67,166,477
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                354,766,879
<COMMON>                                         2,500
<OTHER-SE>                               (109,043,997)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,507,918,000
<SALES>                                     57,638,350
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            57,638,350
<CGS>                                        8,937,665
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               49,828,803
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                68,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          26,683,120
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (17,602,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    41,250
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (17,643,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (17,644,008)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
*

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4113

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Tong Thanh Robert Nguyen, * [UNPUBLISHED]

also known as Robert Nguyen, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 4, 2005

Filed: October 10, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tong Thanh Robert Nguyen pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 846, and the district court*

 sentenced him to 135 months in prison and 5

years of supervised release. On appeal, Nguyen argues the district court should have

departed downward under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 because the seriousness of his criminal

history was overstated, and he should be resentenced under United States v. Booker,
-2-

125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), because the district court treated the Guidelines as mandatory

at his pre-Booker sentencing.

As to the first issue, Nguyen cannot challenge his 135-month prison sentence

because he specifically agreed to it in his plea agreement. See United States v.

Reyes-Contreras, 349 F.3d 524, 525 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam); United States v.

Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995). As to the second issue, Nguyen did not

raise a Sixth Amendment objection below, and he cannot demonstrate a reasonable

probability the district court would have imposed a lower sentence under advisory

Guidelines. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 552-53 (8th Cir. 2005) (en

banc), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. July 27, 2005) (No. 05-5547).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
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 this Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") of China
Agritech, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, I, Yu Chang,
the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 the undersigned knowledge and belief:

(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:  August 16, 2005                     /s/ Yu CHANG
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Yu CHANG
                                           Chief Executive Officer and President
# Box4_Table 6_Insurance overall
May 13, 2015 U. S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Subject: Request for Extension of Exemption No. 10772 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26326 Dear Sir

### IMadam: -··- _ .....,

Please accept this letteras FrontierAirlines, Inc.'s request to extend Exemption No. 10772, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26326, The current exemption permits exemption from 121.434 (c)(1 )(ii) ofTitle 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) tothe extent necessary to allow FrontierAirlines to substitute aqualified and authorized CheckAirman and/orAircrew Program Designee for an FAA Inspector to observe aqualifying Pilot In Command (PIC) who is completing initial or up-grade training specified in 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoffand a landing. FrontierAirlines, Inc. is confident that granting an extension ofthe current Exemption No. 10772, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26326, would not reduce the level ofsafety, nor have an adverse impact on the interest ofthe aircraft owners or the government agencies. Frontier asserts that granting this extension is in the public interest since itwill allow FrontierAirlines, to continue to provide reliable and timely service to the flying public by reducing the time that FAA Inspectors would be required to be away from the Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), and would allow FrontierAirlines, greaterflexibility in scheduling the required observations. Please contact me at720-374-7500 with any questions.

Cc. Bill Meehan Dave Welt J.P. Thibodeau Sandy Shepherd Jim Nides
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of First National Bancshares, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2002 (the Report), I,
Glen W. Fausset, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 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.

-s- Glen W. Fausset

Glen W. Fausset
President and Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002
# C_2017052EN.01000801.xml

| 18.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/8

---

Corrigendum to the annual report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2015, together with the institutions' replies

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 375 of 13 October 2016
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 375 of 13 October 2016

(2017/C 52/08)

On page 53, paragraph 2.9, second last line:

for:

for:

‘... 339 billion euro at 31 December 2015 ...’,

read:

read:

‘... 344 billion euro at 31 December 2015 ...’.

---
Exhibit No. 32.1
Form 10-QSB
Basic Empire Corporation
File No. 0-49608

          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 Basic  Empire  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Timothy P. Halter,  Chief Executive and Chief Financial  Officer 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:

     (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: October 20, 2004                            By:   /s/ Timothy P. Halter
      ----------------                               ---------------------------
                                                               Timothy P. Halter
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to Basic  Empire  Corporation  and will be  retained  by Basic  Empire
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
No. 09-9124.

#### Carson D. Combs, Petitioner v. Laurie Voigt, et al.

559 U.S. 1075, 130 S. Ct. 2107,

176 L. Ed. 2d 736,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3287.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District IV, denied.
No. 09-9141.

#### Charles Franklin Bogues, Petitioner v. Duane J. MacEachern, Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Shirley.

559 U.S. 1042, 130 S. Ct. 2074,

176 L. Ed. 2d 423,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2851.

March 29, 2010.

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

Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Hamish Malkin, Chief Financial Officer of Argentex Mining
Corporation (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer),
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Argentex Mining Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and
I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
company and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls
and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
company's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change
in the company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the period covered by this annual report that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and
I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the company's auditors and the audit committee of the
company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
company's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: December 14, 2007





/s/ Hamish MalkinHamish
Malkin Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)

---
October 17, 2017

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellant

NO. 14-17-00234-CV V.

FRANK GUTKOWSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE FOR 

THE ESTATE OF PATRICIA GUTKOWSKI, DECEASED, TAMMIE RENE 

GUTKOWSKI AND CARL GUTKOWSKI, Appellees

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the order denying appellant City of Houston’s 

plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss, signed March 8, 2017, was heard on 

the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find that the trial court 

erred in ruling that appellant City of Houston’s governmental immunity was waived 

under the Texas Tort Claims Act. We therefore order the court’s order below 

REVERSED and RENDER judgment dismissing the claims of appellees, Frank 

Gutkowski, Individually and as Representative for the Estate of Patricia Gutkowski, 

Deceased, Tammie Rene Gutkowski and Carl Gutkowski against appellant City of 

Houston.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid jointly 

and severally by appellees, Frank Gutkowski, Individually and as Representative for 

the Estate of Patricia Gutkowski, Deceased, Tammie Rene Gutkowski and Carl 

Gutkowski.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
No. 08-974.

#### Arthur L. Lewis, Jr., et al., Petitioners v. City of Chicago, Illinois.

559 U.S. 932, 130 S. Ct. 1499,

176 L. Ed. 2d 105,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1031.

February 19, 2010.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.
### Fw: oops, my mistake... Jan King to: Sherry Russell 07/12/2011 03:55 PM Jan King Regulatory Development and Policy Analysis Group phone: (919) 541-5665 fax: (919) 541-2664 Mailcode: C404-05
----- Forwarded by Jan King/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/12/2011 03:55 PM -----

From: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US To: "Laity, Jim" <James

_ A.

_ Laity@omb.eop.gov> Cc: "Mancini, Dominic J." <Dominic

_J.

_ Mancini@omb.eop.gov>, Ginger Tennant/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jan King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, John Hannon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lea Anderson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Randy Waite/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rich Scheffe/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 07/12/2011 03:10 PM Subject: Re: oops, my mistake... Thanks Jim. I'm glad what I said made sense to you. I'll wait to hear from you after you hear from your management. "Laity, Jim" 07/12/2011 03:07:39 PM Just read your detailed response on Set 1. I tota... From: "Laity, Jim" <James

_ A.

_ Laity@omb.eop.gov> To: "Laity, Jim" <James

_ A.

_ Laity@omb.eop.gov>, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Mancini, Dominic J." <Dominic

_J.

_ Mancini@omb.eop.gov> Cc: Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, John Hannon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lea Anderson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ginger Tennant/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Randy Waite/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rich Scheffe/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jan King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 07/12/2011 03:07 PM Subject: oops, my mistake...
Just read your detailed response on Set 1. I totally missed that the first sentence already says you are retaining the current secondary standards. Please accept my apologies...trying to do this too quickly!! Everything looks good to me, but I need to wait for internal clearance before you upload. I will let you know as soon as we're ready. -- jim -----Original Message----- From: Laity, Jim Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 3:03 PM To: 'Lydia Wegman'; Mancini, Dominic J. Cc: Karen Martin; John Hannon; Lea Anderson; Janet McCabe; Ginger Tennant; Randy Waite; Rich Scheffe; Jan King Subject: RE: Our response to your first set of comments Set 2 looks fine. I don't understand why you are reluctant to say explicitly up front that you are retaining the current secondary standard to protectagainst direct exposure to gaseous NO x / S Ox
. T his is key info for the public and several folks who read this were initially confused. What's the big deal here. Am I missing something? Please call... 202-395-5168 -----Original Message----- From: Lydia Wegman [mailto:Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 2:12 PM To: Laity, Jim; Mancini, Dominic J. Cc: Karen Martin; John Hannon; Lea Anderson; Janet McCabe; Ginger Tennant; Randy Waite; Rich Scheffe; Jan King Subject: Our response to your first set of comments
Jim, and Dom, Attached is our response to your comments on page one of the notice in the first set of comments. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you are in agreement with these edits. Thanks. Lydia (See attached file: NOxSOx 7-12-11 set 1 comments 7-12-11 response.docx)
No. 09-8487.

#### Wells Holland, Petitioner v. Renee Holland.

559 U.S. 982, 130 S. Ct. 1711,

176 L. Ed. 2d 197,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2129,

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Court of Appeals of South Carolina denied.
No. 09-7587.

#### Raymond P. Vinnie, Petitioner v. Massachusetts.

559 U.S. 1059, 130 S. Ct. 2368,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2962.

176 L. Ed. 2d 578,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

*579Former decision, 558 U.S. 1154, 130 S. Ct. 1152, 175 L. Ed. 2d 983, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 752.
DALE L. WILLIAMS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 3036

_______ ______________________/

Opinion filed November 1, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Steven B. Whittington , Judge

.

Dale L. Williams , pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Tayo Popoola, Assistant Att orney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
# C_2017222EN.01000202.xml

| 11.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8314 — Broadcom/Brocade)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 222/04)

On 12 May 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8314. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8314. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---