alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.3


 


THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE


QUANEX CORPORATION HOURLY


BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES SAVINGS PLAN


 


THIS AGREEMENT by
Quanex Corporation (the “Sponsor”),


 


W I T N E S S E T H:


 


WHEREAS, the Sponsor
previously established the Quanex Corporation Hourly Bargaining Unit Employees
Savings Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 1998 (the “Plan”);


 


WHEREAS, the Sponsor
reserved the right in Section 12.01 to amend the Plan; and


 


WHEREAS, the Sponsor
has determined to amend the Plan;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the
Sponsor hereby agrees that effective January 1, 2004, the Plan is amended as
set forth below:


1.             The definition of the term “Eligible
Employee” included in Article I of the Plan is completely
amended and restated as follows:


“Eligible Employee”
means (a) an Employee who (1) is compensated by the Sponsor on an
hourly basis for services rendered at its MacSteel Michigan division or,
effective February 1, 2001, at its MacSteel Arkansas division, and (2) is
included in a unit of employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement
between an employees’ representative and the Employer; or (b) an Employee
of MacSteel Monroe, Inc. that is included in a unit of employees covered by a
collective bargaining agreement between an employees’ representative and the Employer.


 


2.             Article V of the Plan is amended by
adding the following new Section 5.14 to the Plan:


 


5.14         Loans. 
No loans shall be made to Participants under the Plan.  If (a) a Participant was a participant
in the Cargill Partnership Plan on December 31, 2003, and had a loan
outstanding under the Cargill Partnership Plan on December 31, 2003, and
(b) the loan note and all other rights with respect to such loan held by
or for the Cargill Partnership Plan are rolled over to the Plan, then  such loan shall be continued under the Plan,
and shall be administered  under the
terms and provisions applicable to the loan under the loan agreement and the


 


1

















 


Cargill
Partnership Plan documents applicable to such loan in effect as of December 31,
2003.


 


3.             Article IX of the Plan is amended
by adding the following new Section 9.07 to the Plan:


 


9.07         Credit for Service With North Star Steel
Company.  For purposes of
determining an Employee’s Active Service for eligibility to participate and
vesting, his service with North Star Steel Company, a Minnesota corporation,
and any predecessor will be counted as Active Service under the Plan.


 


2

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Sponsor has caused this Agreement to be executed on this
         day of December, 2003.


 


	
   

  	
  QUANEX CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:
Regulatory Procedures Manual March 2009 Chapter 7 Recall Procedures 

___________________________________________________________________________

7-53

Exhibit 7-1 

MODEL EFFECTIVENESS CHECK LETTER (INDUSTRY) 

Consignee 

Name and Address Date 

(Pressure Sensitive 

Label) 

Dear Sir: 

 On (date), you were notified by letter that John Doe Company, Someplace, Somewhere 

12345, is recalling (product name), container size, code number. All products were 

manufactured by John Doe Company and distributed solely under the manufacturer’s label. 

 Recall of the product was initiated following a change in their formulation which resulted in 

products in distribution channels having the same brand name but different ingredients. The 

old formulation contained X and there is concern that consumers may receive the old formula. 

Use of the old formulation by some consumers represents a potential health hazard. 

 The recall notice from John Doe Company requested consignees (wholesalers and 

retailers) to discontinue selling their existing stock of the old formulations and return existing 

inventories of the recalled formulations to John Doe Company. 

 In order to advise the Food and Drug Administration about the effectiveness of this John 

Doe Company recall, you are requested to complete and return the enclosed questionnaire 

promptly using the prepaid self-addressed envelope. 

 If you have any questions or problems with this request, please call (name and telephone 

number). 

 Thank you for your cooperation. 

 Sincerely, 

NOTE: If this letter is sent to distributors who may have further sold the product to other 

distributors or to retail outlets, the third paragraph should include the fact that the recall notice 

requested the direct consignees to conduct sub-recalls by notifying their customers of the 

recall situation.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       9,183,200
<SECURITIES>                                79,925,400
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,708,500)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,351,400
<PP&E>                                       5,246,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                 270,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             294,507,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,283,600
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,829,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,852,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               294,507,400
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,485,800
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,185,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               235,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,476,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,480,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                   694,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,786,100
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.35


</TABLE>
Jose C. GOMEZ, petitioner, v. Randy GROUNDS, Warden.

No. 12-8462.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Ellen DRUAN, petitioner, v. NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES.

No. 12M138.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time under Rule 14.5 denied.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Patrick Soon-Shiong, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2007 (this report) of Abraxis BioScience, Inc. (registrant);
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 5,
2008



/S/ PATRICK SOON-SHIONG,
M.D.Patrick Soon-Shiong, M.D.Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 82 (Friday, April 28, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 21028]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10658]



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


Commodity Futures Trading Commission

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, May 5, 1995.

PLACE: 2033 K St., NW., Washington, DC 8th Floor Hearing Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-254-6314.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 95-10658 Filed 4-26-95; 3:41 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
James W. TURUC, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 12-9080.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, denied.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-2475

___________ Christian Parler, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Adecco USA, Inc., * * Appeal from the United States Appellee. * District Court for the ------------------------------------- * District of Minnesota. * Christian Parler, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant, * * v. * * Hood Packaging, Inc., * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 5, 2009 Filed: July 10, 2009

___________ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.-2- Christian Parler appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Title VII employment-discrimination action as time-barred. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sent Parler a right-t o-sue letter dated July 13, 2007. Ninetyseven days later, on October 18, 2007, Parler filed suit. He asserted that he had not received the right-to-sue letter until July 27, 2007. Defendants moved to dismiss Parler’s complaint as untimely, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (plaintiff has ninety days from receipt of right-to-sue letter to f ile suit). The district court granted the motion, applying the presumption that Parler received the right-to-sue letter three days after the date on the letter and concluding that Parler failed to rebut the presumption. Given the procedural posture of this case, see Luney v. SGS Auto. Servs. , 432 F.3d 866, 867 (8th Cir. 2005) (motion to di smiss reviewed de novo, taking all facts alleged in complaint as true), we find that Parler’s asserti ons that he received the letter on July 27, were sufficient to withstand a dismissal motion based on the application of a three-day presumption. Therefore, we vacate the dismissal and remand the case to the district court.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





In connection with the Report of Solar
EnerTech Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedDecember 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steve Ye, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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: February 11,
      2011
            By:/s/ Steve
      YeSteve YeChief Financial
      Officer
Alberto C. MAGALLANES, petitioner, v. NEBRASKA.

No. 12-9427.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nebraska denied.
Tierra Capri GOBBLE, petitioner, v. ALABAMA.

No. 12-8308.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama denied.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 11.1



                            Castle Energy Corporation
                 Statement of Computation of Earnings Per Share
                (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
                                   (Unaudited)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                  Three Months Ended December 31,
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            2000                                 1999
                                                                 ---------------------------          --------------------------
                                                                    Basic           Diluted              Basic          Diluted
                                                                 ----------       ----------          ----------      ----------
<S>                                                                  <C>              <C>                 <C>             <C>
  I.  Shares Outstanding, Net of Treasury
         Stock Purchased and Options Exercised During
         the Period:

         Stock, net                                               6,718,884        6,718,884           7,639,287       7,639,287
         Purchase of treasury stock (weighted)                      (38,480)         (38,480)           (511,548)       (511,548)
                                                                 ----------       ----------          ----------      ----------
                                                                  6,680,404        6,680,404           7,127,739       7,127,739

 II.  Weighted Equivalent Shares:

         Assumed options and warrants exercised                                      219,229                             120,093
                                                                 ----------       ----------          ----------      ----------

III.  Weighted Average Shares and Equivalent Shares               6,680,404        6,899,633           7,127,739       7,247,832
                                                                 ==========       ==========          ==========      ==========

 IV.  Net Income                                                 $    1,110       $    1,110          $      259      $      259
                                                                 ==========       ==========          ==========      ==========

  V.  Net Income Per Share                                       $      .17       $      .16          $      .04      $      .04
                                                                 ==========       ==========          ==========      ==========

</TABLE>



                                      -18-
Kefa Sent Hotep BEY, petitioner, v. Officer PICTRUS K., et al.

No. 12-8943.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
#### Teddy Ann O’CONNOR, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA; Alexsis, Inc., Third-party-defendants—Appellees.

No. 01-35367.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 4, 2002.

Submission Vacated Dec. 26, 2002.

Resubmitted April 27, 2004.

Decided April 27, 2004.

Frank R. Morrison, Jr., Esq., Morrison Law Offices, Whitefísh, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Alen P. Lanning, Esq., Conklin Nybo Leveque & Murphy, L. D. Nybo, Esq., Conklin, Nybo, Leveque & Lanning, Great Falls, MT, Charles E. McNeil, Esq., Garlington Lohn & Robinson, PLLP, Missou*510la, MT, for Third-party-defendants-Appellees.

Before: TROTT, T.G. NELSON and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Teddy Ann O’Connor appeals the entry of summary judgment against her in her action against National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, and Alexis, Inc. We affirm.

After hearing oral argument in this matter, we vacated submission of this case and certified certain legal questions to the Montana Supreme Court that were dispositive of this appeal.1 The Montana Supreme Court graciously accepted the certification, and reformulated the question pursuant to Mont. R.App. P. 44(d) as follows:

> For statute of limitations purposes, do statutory and common law bad faith claims against an insurer, predicated on actions taken in the adjustment of a workers’ compensation claim, accrue when the Montana Workers’ Compensation Court enters a judgment which orders the insurer to pay for a previously denied benefit, but which leaves unresolved the ultimate determinations of the extent and duration of the worker’s disability?

*O’Connor v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co.,*320 Mont. 301, 302-03, 87 P.3d 454 (2004).

After considering the question, the Montana Supreme Court answered this question in the affirmative. *Id.*The reasoning of the Montana Supreme Court is self-explanatory and dispositive of this appeal.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. We order the resubmission of this appeal as of this date.
Ryan Frank BONNEAU, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9657.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1458 Received in Senate (RDS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1458

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 7, 2006

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To require any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization 
made by a notary public licensed by a State other than the State where 
   the court is located when such notarization occurs in or affects 
                          interstate commerce.

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

SECTION 1. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN FEDERAL COURTS.

    Each Federal court shall recognize any lawful notarization made by 
a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State 
other than the State where the Federal court is located if--
            (1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate 
        commerce; and
            (2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public's 
        authority, is used in the notarization; or
            (B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal 
        information is securely attached to, or logically associated 
        with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-
        resistant.

SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN STATE COURTS.

    Each court that operates under the jurisdiction of a State shall 
recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or 
commissioned under the laws of a State other than the State where the 
court is located if--
            (1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate 
        commerce; and
            (2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public's 
        authority, is used in the notarization; or
            (B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal 
        information is securely attached to, or logically associated 
        with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-
        resistant.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Electronic record.--The term ``electronic record'' has 
        the meaning given that term in section 106 of the Electronic 
        Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. 
        7006).
            (2) Logically associated with.--Seal information is 
        ``logically associated with'' an electronic record if the seal 
        information is securely bound to the electronic record in such 
        a manner as to make it impracticable to falsify or alter, 
        without detection, either the record or the seal information.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 6, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Corey Evander JOHNSON, petitioner, v. Marie VARGA, Warden.

No. 12-7776.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Lawrence Butler, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Alpha Technologies Group, Inc.;

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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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) (Intentionally left Blank)

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

/s/ Lawrence Butler
-------------------
Lawrence Butler
Chief Executive Officer
March 10, 2004

                                       18