alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 562 Reported in Senate (RS)]







                                                       Calendar No. 406
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 562

                          [Report No. 109-244]


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 17, 2005

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

                             April 20, 2006

 Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of April 7, 2006, 
                   by Mr. Domenici, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
   To authorize the Government of Ukraine to establish a memorial on 
 Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor the victims of the 
         manmade famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932-1933.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH MEMORIAL.

    (a) In General.--The Government of Ukraine is authorized to 
establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to 
honor the victims of the Ukrainian famine-genocide of 1932-1933.
    (b) Compliance With Standards for Commemorative Works.--The 
establishment of the memorial shall be in accordance with chapter 89 of 
title 40, United States Code (commonly known as the ``Commemorative 
Works Act''), except that sections 8902(a)(1), 8906(b)(1), 8908(b)(2), 
and 8909(b) shall not apply with respect to the memorial.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON PAYMENT OF EXPENSES.

    The United States Government shall not pay any expense for the 
establishment of the memorial or its maintenance.
                                                       Calendar No. 406

109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 562

                          [Report No. 109-244]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To authorize the Government of Ukraine to establish a memorial on 
 Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor the victims of the 
         manmade famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932-1933.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 20, 2006

                       Reported without amendment`
Exhibit 32.2  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 on Form 10-Q of United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC (the
Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Barb Bontrager,
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, 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.    /s/ Barb
BontragerBarb Bontrager
Chief Financial OfficerDated:  May 15, 2009
#### William L. Shaw v. B. F. Wayman.

*Partnership—Settlement of Accounts—ICmdence**

This court, upon a review of the evidence, sustains a decree of the court below which establishes the fact of a partnership between the parties and settles their partnership accounts.

[Opinion filed June 7, 1887.]

In error to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County; the Hon. C. C. Boggs, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. W. & E. L. Stoker, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. O. H. Pattoh, for defendant in error.

¡Reasons for affirming by

Wilkin, P. J.

This was a bill in chancery by defendant in error against plaintiff in error to settle for an alleged partnership existing between the parties, for cultivating and shipping strawberries. Plaintiff in error by his answer denied the partnership, and *364averred that he rented the ground to a third party to cultivate in strawberries, furnishing team, and that the tenant was to pay him two-thirds of the crop; that defendant in error purchased the interest of the tenant, and was to carry out the contract. It also appears that plaintiff in error filed a cross-bill. The court below found that a partnership did exist between the parties, and without requiring the master to state the account between the parties, found a balance of §30 due defendant in error from plaintiff in error on account of the partnership business, and decreed him that amount with costs.

The only substantial objection made to the proceeding below and the finding and decree is, that the evidence is insufficient to establish a partnership between the parties. It is conceded, however, that the evidence of defendant in error does not prove the allegations found in his bill, but it is insisted that this proof is overcome by the other evidence and that the finding is contrary to the weight of the testimony. In the conflict of evidence which is irreconcilable, we are not disposed to disturb the finding of the court below on that ground.

It is insisted that the court erred in refusing to allow plaintiff in error to dismiss his cross-bill, and in entering a decree for defendant in error thereon. A sufficient answer to this objection is found in the fact that the record fails to show any such refusal or order.

Ho objection is urged to the amount found due him on the theory that a partnership existed, and therefore the manner of arriving at it is not in question. There is nothing in this record to justify a reversal and the decree is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0092

_________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

F.S.,

 Respondent and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Amy Eddy, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 15 2021

09/15/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0092
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5603 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 22, 2006 

Received 

AN ACT 

To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, 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, 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

HR 5603 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Second Higher Edu3 cation Extension Act of 2006’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS. 

5 Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act 

6 of 2005 (Public Law 109–81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘June 30, 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘Sep8 tember 30, 2006’’. 

9 SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

10 Nothing in this Act, or in the Higher Education Ex11 tension Act of 2005 as amended by this Act, shall be con12 strued to limit or otherwise alter the authorizations of ap13 propriations for, or the durations of, programs contained 

14 in the amendments made by the Higher Education Rec15 onciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–171) to the pro16 visions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Tax17 payer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 21, 2006. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
Ninth Amendment to 401(k) Savings and Profit Sharing Plan



 Exhibit 10.11 
 NINTH AMENDMENT 
 OF 
 ENTEGRIS, INC. 
 401(k) SAVINGS AND PROFIT SHARING PLAN 
 (2005 Restatement) 
 WHEREAS, Entegris, Inc. (the “Principal Sponsor”) has heretofore established and maintains a 401(k) and profit sharing plan which
was amended and restated in a document effective August 5, 2005, and entitled “ENTEGRIS, INC. 401(k) SAVINGS AND PROFIT SHARING PLAN (2005 Restatement),” as amended (collectively, the “Plan Statement”); and 
 WHEREAS, The Principal Sponsor has reserved to itself the power to make further amendments of the Plan Statement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, The Plan Statement is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	1.	MATCHING CONTRIBUTION REDUCTION. Effective as of January 1, 2009 or as soon thereafter as administratively and legally feasible, Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2
of the Plan Statement shall be amended to read in full as follows: 

 3.3.1. Amount and
Eligibility. The Employer shall contribute to the Trustee for deposit in the Fund and for crediting to the Participant’s Employer Matching Account an amount which will equal fifty percent (50%) of the amount of the first three percent
(3%) and twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the next two percent (2%) of reduction in Recognized Compensation for each pay period which was agreed to by the Participant pursuant to a Retirement Savings Election. Such Employer
matching contributions shall be delivered to the Trustee for deposit in the Fund not later than the time prescribed by federal law (including extensions) for filing the federal income tax return of the Employer for the taxable year in which the Plan
Year ends. 
 3.3.2. Matching Contributions Determined on an Annual Basis. If the matching contributions
made with respect to any Participant for the Plan Year are less than fifty percent (50%) of the first three percent (3%) and twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the next two percent (2%) of reduction in Recognized
Compensation for such Plan Year, then the Employer shall make an additional matching contribution to the Plan so that the total matching contributions with respect to such Participant for such Plan Year will equal fifty percent (50%) of the
first three percent (3%) and twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the next two percent (2%) of the Participant’s reduction in Recognized Compensation for such Plan Year. 
  

	2.	CONFORMING CHANGES. Wherever the amount of Employer Matching Contributions is set forth in the Plan Statement, such language shall be amended to read in full as
follows: “fifty percent (50%) of the first three percent (3%) and twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the next two percent (2%) of reduction in Recognized Compensation for such Plan Year.”


  

	3.	SAVINGS CLAUSE. Save and except as herein expressly amended, the Plan Statement shall continue in full force and effect.
| (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:              November 13, 2008 |                                                         | /s/ Wade              R.              Bradley |
|                                 | Wade              R. Bradley                                 |
|                                 | Chief Executive OfficerEAU Technologies,                Inc. |

----
EXHIBIT
10.44


 


Written description of Compensatory Arrangement between Sealed Air
Corporation and David B. Crosier


 


February 18, 2010


 


In a
Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 30, 2009, Sealed Air Corporation (the “Company”)
reported that David B. Crosier, a Senior Vice President of the Company, advised
the Company of his decision to resign from the Company effective November 30,
2009 for personal and family reasons.  Mr. Crosier
is a “named executive officer” for whom disclosure was required to be made by
the Company in its most recent proxy statement pursuant to Item 402(c) of
Regulation S-K.


 


On February 18, 2010, the Organization and
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company reviewed the
circumstances of Mr. Crosier’s departure from Sealed Air.  As a result of his resignation, Mr. Crosier
was at risk of forfeiting approximately $1.7 million in incentive and deferred
compensation, comprising his 2009 bonus under the Annual Incentive Plan, his
Stock Leverage Opportunity award of 1,617 restricted stock units in connection
with his 2008 bonus under the Annual Incentive Plan, his two-year and
three-year performance share unit awards made in early 2009 under the 2005
Contingent Stock Plan, and an award of 16,000 shares of restricted stock
awarded on April 12, 2007 under the 2005 Contingent Stock Plan.  Based on his 2009 performance and his
significant contributions to the Company’s business over the last three years,
the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer recommended, and the
Organization and Compensation Committee approved, the award to Mr. Crosier
of a special cash bonus of $260,000 and the waiver by the Committee of the
forfeiture of 10,000 shares of the total of 16,000 shares of restricted stock
awarded to Mr. Crosier on April 12, 2007.  The balance of Mr. Crosier’s incentive
and deferred compensation was forfeited.
#### Homeseekers Realty Company, a Corporation, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Fred Gehrken, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed May 19, 1928.

*McCune, Casey, Hiaasen <& Fleming,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*956*C. E. Farrington, Thomas M. Lockhart*and <7. *F. Albert Eche,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment 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 judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J. and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
exv10w17






Exhibit 10.17




AMENDMENT TO

THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC. 2007 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN




     WHEREAS, The Williams Companies, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains The Williams Companies, Inc.
2007 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, effective as of May 17, 2007, as subsequently amended (the
“Plan”); and



     WHEREAS, in accordance with the terms of the Plan the Compensation Committee may designate the
Designated Subsidiaries that may participate in the Plan; and make certain other Plan amendments



     WHEREAS, at its January 20, 2010 meeting, consistent with the changes below, the Compensation
Committee adopted the following changes to the Plan;



     NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows effective as provided herein:



I.




     Effective February 5, 2010, Appendix A of the Plan is amended in its entirety to provide as
follows:



“APPENDIX A-DESIGNATED SUBSIDIARIES




The Williams Companies, Inc.

Williams Express, Inc.

Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc.

Williams Natural Gas Liquids, Inc.

Northwest Pipeline Services LLC

Transco Energy Company LLC

Transco Pipeline Services LLC

Williams Production Company, LLC

Williams Midstream Services, LLC

Williams Energy Services, LLC

Williams One-Call Services, Inc.

Williams Headquarters Building Company

Williams Relocation Management, Inc.

Williams Acquisition Holding Company, Inc.

Williams Information Technology, Inc.

Williams Petroleum Services, LLC



 









 





F T & T, Inc.

Williams Gas Marketing, Inc.

Williams International Company

Williams Refining & Marketing, L.L.C.

Williams Midstream Natural Gas Liquids, Inc.

Williams Exploration Company

Williams Gas Pipeline Company, LLC

MAPCO Inc.

Williams WPC — I, Inc.

Williams WPC — II, Inc.

Williams WPC International Company”



II.



Except as modified herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification by Chief Executive Officer of Quarterly Report

I, Donald W. Smith, Chief Executive Officer of Mitel Networks Corporation (Mitel), 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 Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of Mitel, for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2010 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: September 14, 2010



/S/    DONALD W.
SMITHName:

Donald W. SmithTitle:

Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7638
MICHAEL CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus G. M. HINKLE; MR. MITCHELL; LIEUTENANT LATNEY; J. GOLDEN, Major; MR. VALLOUR; CAPTAIN YATES; C. W. JOHNSON; MS. BUSWELL; MR. SPENCER; L. W. HUFFMAN, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexa ndria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1374) Submitted: May 15, 1997 Decided: May 28, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael Clark, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Clark v. Hinkle , No. CA-96-1374 (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Howard T. SANBORN and Jonathan R. Lopez, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Nathan W. WORSTELL, Defendant/Appellant, and United Fire & Casualty Company, Defendant/Respondent.

No. ED 106120

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: June 12, 2018 Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 16, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied September 25, 2018

Aaron W. Smith, 2100 W. Broadway, Columbia, MO 65203, For Plaintiffs/Appellants.

Edward D. Robertson III, 11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 200, Leawood, KS 66211, For Defendant/Appellant.

Matthew M. Clifford, John G. Schultz, 8900 Ward Parkway, Kansas City, MO 64114, For Defendant/Respondent.

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

*98Howard T. Sanborn, Jonathan Lopez, and Nathan Worstell (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the trial court's judgment denying their motions for summary judgment and granting United Fire & Casualty Company's (United) cross-motion for summary judgment seeking a determination of coverage under a United insurance policy. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the circuit court did not err in denying Appellants' motions and granting United's cross-motion because there is no genuine issue of material fact and United is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *ITT Comm. Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp.*, 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).
exv10w27







	 	 	 	 	 



Exhibit 10.27



November 4, 2009




Jeff Rydin

PO Box 5000, PMB 94

Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067



Dear Jeff,



Congratulations on your promotion to Executive Vice President, Americas, Sales & Chairman of the
Global Sales Executive Committee. Being awarded an executive promotion means that you are a
NuVasive “A+” Player. You have successfully performed your stretch goals, demonstrated outstanding
performance standards, have embraced your challenges with enthusiasm, and have continuously worked
to perpetuate and grow our culture. I trust that you feel “lucky” and have an “attitude of
gratitude” about your continued growth prospects.



You will officially begin work in this capacity on January 1, 2010. Your new rate of compensation
is $33,333/month. In connection with your promotion, we anticipate granting you, subject to the
approval of the Board of Directors, 50,000 Restricted Stock Units (the “RSUs”) representing a
promise to issue shares of NuVasive stock upon vesting. The RSU’s will vest over four years in
accordance with the Company’s 2004 Equity Incentive Plan and in anticipation of you delivering
outstanding results.



In addition to your compensation increase, your current target bonus for 2010 is 75% of your
annual base salary (with ability to over-perform), with the actual amount being determined at the
discretion of the Board of Directors. All bonus payments will be paid in accordance with the
terms of your letter agreement, dated August 5, 2008, as amended. I fully anticipate that you
will do your part to drive outstanding performance across all of these measures and that you will
personally contribute to your Department’s and the Company’s success.



As Shareowners, our common goal is to contribute meaningfully toward NuVasive’s growth targets,
deliver new and creative products, leverage resources for profitability and exercise Absolute
Responsiveness® to the maximum level. I look forward to continuing the journey with
you.



I wish you tremendous success in your new role!




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Onward and Upward!

NUVASIVE, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/Alexis V. Lukianov
 	 
	 	 	Alexis V. Lukianov 	 


Please sign below indicating your understanding and acceptance of this promotion and return the
fully executed letter to Jen Crutchfield. You should keep one copy of this letter for your
records.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	     /s/Jeff Rydin
 	 
	 	Jeff Rydin
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 6D2 3

- 744 Lower Tribunal No. CF20

- 004464

- XX

_____________________________
L AZARO P EREZ T OLEDO , Appellan t ,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County

. J. Kevin Abdoney , Judge.

April 23, 2024

PER CURIAM

.

AFFIRMED

.

TRAVER
, C

. J. , and WHITE and GANNAM , JJ., c oncur.

Johah K. Dick stei n , of Dickstein Law, Tampa, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED