alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7
March 7, 1998

Ronald A. Rittenmeyer

Ryder TRS, Inc.

1560 Broadway, Suite 1800

Denver, Colorado 80202

Re:  Employment Agreement

Dear Ron:

I have been advised that certain provisions of my employment agreement with the
Company dated December 18, 1997 may give rise to so-called "parachute payments"
under Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code.

While my rights under my employment agreement are fully enforceable by me, I
hereby agree to waive all right and entitlement to the "Executive Severance" and
"Executive Stay-on Bonus" (collectively, the "Parachute Payments") to be
provided to me by the Company under the terms of my employment agreement.

My waiver of the Parachute Payments is subject to and conditioned on the
consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated as of March 4, 1998 by and among Ryder TRS, Inc., Questor Partners
Fund, L.P., Questor Side-By-Side Partners, L.P., Madison Dearborn Capital
Partners, L.P., BDG Corporation and Budget Group, Inc. (the "Merger Agreement").
If the Merger Agreement is terminated prior to the "Closing" (as defined in the
Merger Agreement) as provided in Section 10.1 of the Merger Agreement, my waiver
of the Parachute Payments shall be deemed rescinded, and the existing terms of
my employment agreement will continue to apply without regard to this waiver.
Except as otherwise provided herein, my waiver of the Parachute Payments shall
not affect any other benefits provided under my employment agreement.

Please acknowledge receipt and your agreement to the matters set forth in this
letter.

Very truly yours,

/s/ DAVID RUSSELL

David Russell


Accepted and Agreed to:

RYDER TRS, INC.

/s/ RONALD A. RITTENMEYER
__________________________
Ronald A. Rittenmeyer
IB 

Union Calendar No. 296 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 897 

[Report No. 112–429] 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 3, 2011 

Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

APRIL 16, 2012 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 897 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

of 1977 to clarify that uncertified States and Indian 

tribes have the authority to use certain payments for 

certain noncoal reclamation projects and acid mine remediation programs. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 897 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION. 

4 (a) RECLAMATION FEE.—Section 402(g)(6)(A) of 

5 the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

6 (30 U.S.C. 1232(g)(6)(A)) is amended by inserting ‘‘and 

7 section 411(h)(1)’’ after ‘‘paragraphs (1) and (5)’’. 

8 (b) FILLING VOIDS AND SEALING TUNNELS.—Sec9 tion 409(b) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclama10 tion Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1239(b)) is amended by in11 serting ‘‘and section 411(h)(1)’’ after ‘‘section 402(g)’’. 

12 (c) USE OF FUNDS.—Section 411(h)(1)(D)(ii) of the 

13 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 

14 U.S.C. 1240a(h)(1)(D)(ii)) is amended by striking ‘‘sec15 tion 403’’ and inserting ‘‘section 402(g)(6), 403, or 409’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 296 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 897 

[Report No. 112–429] 

A BILL 

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Recgrams. lamation projects and acid mine remediation pro- use certain payments for certain noncoal rec- States and Indian tribes have the authority to lamation Act of 1977 to clarify that uncertified 

APRIL 16, 2012 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2020054EN.01003701.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/37

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 2 December 2019 — FORMAT Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie

(Case C-879/19)

(2020/C 54/41)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FORMAT Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe

Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie

Question referred

Is the expression ‘a person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States’ used in the first sentence of Article 14(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, in the version resulting from Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, (1) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, (2) to be interpreted as also applying to a person who, during the period covered by and within the framework of one and the same contract of employment concluded with a single employer, performs work in the territory of each of at least two Member States not simultaneously or concurrently, but during directly consecutive, successive periods of several months?

---

(1)  OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2006 L 392, p. 1.

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

I,    Barry J. Susson, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary of Deb Shops,    Inc. (the “Company”),    certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.    Section 1350, that:

(1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2006 (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 the Company.

 

Date: September 8, 2006
   
 

 

/s/ Barry J. Susson, CPA

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barry          J. Susson, CPAChief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATE**

I, Daniel D. Drury, certify that:

| 1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Kinetek, Inc.; |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2.                                                                                          | Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report; |  
3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;

 
4.

The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15) for the registrant and we 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 annual report is being prepared;

 
 
b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures, and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

 
 
c)

Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

 
5.

The registrant’s other certifying officers 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 the 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 controls 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 controls over financial reporting.

 
Date:

November 2, 2005
     /s/ Daniel D.        Drury                            Name:  Daniel D. DruryTitle:    Chief Financial Officer 
 

  |
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 85 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 85

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the maximum rate 
          of tax on the income of corporations to 20 percent.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

  Mr. Johanns introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the maximum rate 
          of tax on the income of corporations to 20 percent.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Restoring America's Competitiveness 
in Enterprise (RACE) Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN CORPORATE TAX RATE.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 11 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
    ``(b) Amount of Tax.--The amount of tax imposed by subsection (a) 
shall be the sum of--
            ``(1) 15 percent of so much of the taxable income as does 
        not exceed $50,000, and
            ``(2) 20 percent of so much of the taxable income as 
        exceeds $50,000.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### TOBIN, Appellant, v. QUENZER et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Action by Adaline Gertrude Tobin against Irene Quenzer and others.

No opinion. Final order of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Charles M. Weaver, certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
            Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, Brunswick Corporation
            Note-Backed Series 2002-3 Trust (the "Trust") and all reports on
            Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports of the Trust
            filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this
            annual report of the Trust;

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as
            a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered
            by this annual report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
            required to be provided to the Depositor by the Trustee under the
            pooling and servicing or similar agreement, for inclusion in these
            reports is included in these reports; and

      4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
            Depositor and the Trustee under the pooling and servicing or
            similar agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual
            compliance review required under that agreement, and except as
            disclosed in the reports, the Depositor and Trustee have each
            fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as Trustee.

Date: March 27, 2006


      /s/ CHARLES M. WEAVER
----------------------------------------
Charles M. Weaver, Senior Vice President
Unassociated Document


     

          

    Exhibit
10.1

    


     

    AMENDMENT
NO. 2 TO STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT

     

    Amendment No. 2 (“Amendment No. 2”)
dated December 9, 2009 to Stock Purchase Agreement dated October 6, 2009 and
amended November 10, 2009 (the “Amended SPA”) among CS China Acquisition Corp.
(“Purchaser”),
Asia Gaming & Resort, Ltd. (“Company”) and Spring
Fortune Investment Ltd (“Shareholder”).

     

    WHEREAS, the parties hereto, who
constitute all of the parties to the Amended SPA, desire to amend the Amended
SPA as set forth herein;

     

    IT IS AGREED:

     

    1.  Section
8.1(b) of the Amended SPA is hereby amended to read as follows:

     

    “(b) by
either Purchaser or the Shareholder if the transactions contemplated by this
Agreement shall not have been consummated by February 10, 2010  (the
“Termination Date”) for any reason;
provided, however, that the right to terminate this Agreement under this Section
8.1(b) shall not be available to any party whose action or failure to act has
been a principal cause of or resulted in the failure of such consummation to
occur on or before such date and such action or failure to act constitutes a
breach of this Agreement;”

     

    2.  Capitalized
terms used herein that are defined in the Amended SPA shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in the Amended SPA.

     

    3.  As
amended hereby, the Amended SPA shall remain in full force and
effect.

     

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto
have caused this Amendment No. 2 to be executed as of the date first above
written.

     

    
      
        	 	CS
      CHINA ACQUISITION CORP.	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                 

              	
                By:
      

              	/s/ James
      R. Preissler	 
	 	 	James
      R. Preissler	 
	 	 	Director
      and CFO	 
	 	 	 	 


      

    

    
       

      
        
          	 	ASIA
      GAMING & RESORT, LTD.	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                   

                	
                  By:
      

                	/s/ Lam
      Man Pou	 
	 	 	Lam Man
      Pou	 
	 	 	Chairman
      and Director	 
	 	 	 	 


        

      

      
         

        
          
            	 	SPRING
      FORTUNE INVESTMENTS LTD	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                     

                  	
                    By:
      

                  	/s/ Lam
      Man Pou	 
	 	 	Lam Man
      Pou	 
	 	 	Chairman
      and Director
DLD-261

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-3227

___________

IN RE: WILLIAM C. BULLOCK,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to D.C. Civ. No. 1:09-cv-001902)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

August 5, 2010

Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 10, 2010)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

In September 2009, Petitioner William Bullock filed a pro se civil action in the

Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Defendants removed the

action to the Middle District of Pennsylvania and moved for judgment on the pleadings. 

In April 2010, the District Court granted Defendants’ motion, entering judgment for

Defendants on all claims. Bullock moved to clarify the order, and the District Court
2

denied the motion for clarification. On July 23, 2010, Bullock petitioned this Court for a

writ of mandamus to compel the District Judge to answer his motion for clarification.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases, see In re Diet

Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005), as the petitioner must

demonstrate that he has “no other adequate means” to obtain the relief desired and a

“clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79

(3d Cir. 1996). Bullock does not meet the stringent requirements for relief here. His

mandamus petition is a request for the District Judge to answer his motion for

clarification. However, on July 1, 2010, the District Judge entered an order, denying

Bullock’s motion, explaining that the motion was untimely and meritless. A writ of

mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal. See In re Ford Motor Co., 110 F.3d 954, 957

(1997); Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Co., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004). Insofar as Bullock’s

petition also requests an appeal of the District Court’s judgment and the order denying his

motion for clarification, we note that the Clerk submitted a copy of Bullock’s petition to

the District Court for docketing as a notice of appeal. We will adjudicate the appeal in

due course.

Accordingly, we determine that Bullock has not met his burden of showing that he

has no other means to obtain the relief he seeks and that his right to issuance of the writ is

“clear and indisputable.” As a result, we will deny his mandamus petition.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 8, 2011*

Decided December 8, 2011

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 11‐1973

VASSIL M. MARINOV, Appeal from the United States District

Plaintiff‐Appellant, Court for the Northern District of Indiana,

Hammond Division.

v. No. 4:07cv54

TRUSTEES OF PURDUE Jon E. DeGuilio,

UNIVERSITY, and ALYSA Judge.

CHRISTMAS ROLLACK,

Defendants‐Appellees.

O R D E R

Vassil Marinov, a Bulgarian who used to do custodial work at Purdue University,

sued the university and one of its personnel administrators for discrimination under the

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112, and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e‐2(a)(1),

2000e‐3(a). Marinov could not be around certain cleaning chemicals because they made him

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

*

After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C).
No. 11‐1973 Page 2

sick. He claimed that Purdue failed to accommodate this disability, denied him other

opportunities because he was Bulgarian, and then fired him in retaliation for a complaint he

filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The district court granted

summary judgment for the defendants on all claims, determining that Purdue was entitled

to sovereign immunity from Marinov’s ADA claim; that Marinov could not establish a

prima facie case of national origin discrimination, or alternatively that Purdue’s reasons for

its personnel actions were pretextual; and that Marinov failed to establish a retaliation claim

because he could not show a causal connection between his filing of the EEOC complaint

and his termination.

On appeal Marinov, now proceeding pro se, maintains that his discharge was

improper, but he does not identify any specific error made by the district court or develop

an argument supported by citations to legal authority or the record. See FED. R. APP. P.

28(a)(9); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Although we will construe a

pro se litigant’s brief liberally, we will not craft a litigant’s arguments or perform legal

research for him. See Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545–46.

DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      15,579,897
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,452,889
<PP&E>                                       5,293,975
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,385,114
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,428,074
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,205,635
<BONDS>                                      3,343,766
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     13,882
<COMMON>                                         3,317
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,953,405
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,428,074
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,431,744
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,116,080
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,192,842
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (158,987)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,718,191)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,718,191)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,718,191)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WHO HAVE FILED AGREEMENTSTO BE APPROVED AS ADEPOSITORY OFTRUST ACCOUNTS AND TO PROVIDE DISHONORED CHECK REPORTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 221, Pa.R.D.E. New Name Change 191 First Columbia Bank & Trust Company —Change to 191 Journey Bank Platinum Leader Change Correction Removal

January 2024