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





Exhibit 10.30





KONTOOR BRANDS EXECUTIVE DEFERRED SAVINGS PLAN II


KONTOOR BRANDS, INC. AUTHORIZED OFFICER’S RESOLUTIONS


AMENDMENT NO. 1


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section XI of the Kontoor Brands Executive Deferred Savings Plan II (the “Plan”), Kontoor Brands, Inc, a North Carolina corporation (the “Company”), has reserved the right to amend or modify the Plan from time to time; and


WHEREAS, Kontoor Brands, Inc. Retirement Plans Committee (the “Committee”) is the administrator of the Plan; and


WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to suspend Matching Deferral credits to the Plan; and 


WHEREAS, the Company has delegated to its Vice President-Chief Human Resources Officer the authority and responsibility to perform, undertake, decide and implement the Company’s functions and decisions with respect to and under the Plan. 


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section III, Subsection (2) of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following new language to the end thereof:


“Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Subsection (2), no Matching Deferral credits shall be made to the Plan after March 25, 2020. The Plan shall provide Participants written notice of the suspension of Matching Deferral credits.” 


FURTHER RESOLVED: The foregoing amendments shall be effective on March 23, 2020.


FURTHER RESOLVED: The provisions of the Plan are hereby modified to conform with this Plan Amendment, but in all other respects the provisions of the Plan are to be and shall remain in full force and effect.


FURTHER RESOLVED:   The Committee shall be, and hereby is, authorized and directed to take such action as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out and implement this Plan Amendment and these resolutions. 


FURTHER RESOLVED:    All of the acts of all of the officers and employees of the Company and the members and representatives of the Committee, whether heretofore or hereafter taken or done, which are in conformity with the intent and purposes of these resolutions, shall be and the same hereby are, in all respects ratified, approved and confirmed. 


IN WITNESS WHEROF, the Company has caused these Authorized Officer’s Resolutions to be adopted and executed by its duly authorized officer on March 23, 2020.


KONTOOR BRANDS, INC.




By:    /s/ Scott Shoener
Scott Shoener
Vice President - Chief Human Resources Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.01
                           CARAUSTAR INDUSTRIES, INC.
                             3100 Joe Jerkins Blvd.
                               Austell, GA 30106

               LETTER TO COMMISSION PURSUANT TO TEMPORARY NOTE 3T

March 28, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549-0408

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This letter is written pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation
S-X. Caraustar Industries, Inc. (the "Corporation") has received a
representation letter from Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") stating that the
audit of the consolidated balance sheets of the Corporation and subsidiaries as
of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 2001, was subject to Arthur Andersen's quality
control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide
reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with
professional standards, and that there was appropriate continuity of Arthur
Andersen personnel working on the audit and availability of national office
consultation and availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur
Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of the audit.

                                    Very truly yours,

                                    Caraustar Industries, Inc.

                                    By:  /s/ H. Lee Thrash, III
                                        ---------------------------
                                        H. Lee Thrash, III,
                                        Vice President, Planning
                                        and Development and
                                        Chief Financial Officer
NO. 07-11-00322-CV 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL E 

AUGUST 24, 2011 

IN RE JAIME HERNANDEZ MUNIZ, RELATOR 

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.1

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Relator Jamie Hernandez Muniz, a prison inmate appearing pro se, has filed a 

motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus2

 and a petition for writ of 

mandamus. In his petition, relator complains that the trial court denied him due process 

of law by signing orders directing withdrawal of funds from his trust account. For the 

reasons that follow, we will deny relator’s petition. 

Relator has not filed a record or appendix with his petition. In an original 

mandamus proceeding, the petition must be accompanied by a certified or sworn copy 

of every document that is material to a relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any 

underlying proceeding. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1). Additionally, the petition states 

 1

 John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by 

assignment. 

2

 Motions for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus are no longer required. 

Tex. R. App. P. 52.1 Notes and Comments. 
2 

facts not supported by evidence included in an appendix or record. A relator’s burden 

on mandamus includes meeting the requirement that “[e]very statement of fact in the 

petition [is] supported by citation to competent evidence included in the appendix or 

record.” Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(g). In short, a relator must supply a record sufficient to 

establish the right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 

1992). Relator has not done so and we are therefore unable to determine whether he is 

entitled to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied and his motion for 

leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot. In denying relator’s 

petition, we express no opinion on the merits of his complaint, or whether it is properly 

reviewable by petition for writ of mandamus. See Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 321 

(Tex. 2009) (holding appellate review of a trial court’s order denying an inmate’s motion 

challenging a withdrawal order is by appeal). 

 James T. Campbell 

 Justice
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF)
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF) People & Locations







Jalia  Adams
                        Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF)

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician (Plants)
                        Phone: (785) 712-3284
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains financial information extracted from Swift Energy Income
Partners 1987-B. LTD.'s balance sheet and statement of operations contained in
the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1995 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           1,039
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  460,307
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               461,346
<PP&E>                                      25,068,651
<DEPRECIATION>                            (19,807,484)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,727,598
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          874,828
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,604,478
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,727,598
<SALES>                                      1,715,654
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,751,110
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,225,985<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              61,251
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (788,796)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (788,796)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (788,796)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes, and
depreciation, depleation and amortization expenses. Excludes general
and administrative and interest expenses.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MICHAEL KENNEDY, 3:15-CV-01378-SB

Plaintiff, ORDER

v. 

 

CENTRAL CITY CONCERN,

 Defendant.

BROWN, Judge.

Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and

Recommendation (#16) on February 18, 2016, in which she

recommends this Court deny Defendant’s Motion (#4) to Dismiss due

to Plaintiff’s Failure to State A Claim; or Alternatively for

Summary Judgment due to Plaintiff’s Failure to State A Claim with

leave to renew Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment at a later

1 - ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-01378-SB Document 18 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 2
time. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its

obligation to review the record de novo. See Dawson v. Marshall,

561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). See also United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). 

Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not

find any error. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman's Findings and

Recommendation (#16). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's

Motion (#4) to Dismiss due to Plaintiff’s Failure to State A

Claim; or Alternatively for Summary Judgment due to Plaintiff’s

Failure to State A Claim with leave to renew Defendant’s Motion

for Summary Judgment at a later time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 15th day of March, 2016.

 /s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

2 - ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-01378-SB Document 18 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 2
# L_2009178EN.01001601.xml

| 9.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 178/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 178/16

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 3 July 2009

appointing a new member of the Commission of the European Communities

(2009/528/EC, Euratom)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 215 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 128 thereof,

Whereas:

In a letter dated 24 June 2009, Ms Danuta HÜBNER resigned from her post as a member of the Commission. She should be replaced for the remainder of her term of office,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Mr Pawel SAMECKI is hereby appointed a member of the Commission for the period from 4 July 2009 to 31 October 2009.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on 4 July 2009.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 3 July 2009.

For the Council

The President

A. BORG

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of First Industrial, L.P.;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(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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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
functions):
    /s/ Michael J. HavalaMichael J. HavalaChief Financial Officer
First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc.
#### Ravinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75450.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007 *.

Filed April 20, 2007.

TSZ-Hai Huang, Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

John R. Kresse, Esq., Stephen J. Flynn, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Mark C. Walters, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ravinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision that adopted and affirmed most of the Immigration Judge’s (“U”) decision that denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evi*763dence, *Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because Singh failed to credibly establish his identity, *see Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003) (an applicant’s eligibility for asylum depends on the credible establishment of his identity), and he failed to provide non-duplicative, material, easily-available corroborating evidence in support of his identity, *see Sidhu v. INS,*220 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir.2000). Therefore, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of Singh’s asylum claim. *See Li,*378 F.3d at 964.

Because Singh failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, it necessarily follows that he faded to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Farah,*348 F.3d at 1156.

Singh’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony that the IJ found not credible. Because Singh points to no other evidence that the IJ should have considered in making its CAT determination, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. *See id.*at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, John R. Judd, Chief Financial Officer of ATS Medical, Inc., certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

The Annual Report of Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended
December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 15, 2004


       /s/ John R. Judd
       ---------------------------
Name:  John R. Judd
Title: Chief Finanical Officer
1 – ORDER OF DISMISSAL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

JEFFERY BELL,

Plaintiff, No. 3:15-cv-02176-MO

v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

MOSMAN, J.,

On October 4, 2018, Plaintiff’s death was noted by Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [146]. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) provides that if a motion for substitution “is not made 

within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent 

must be dismissed.” No motion for substitution has been made. Therefore, in accordance with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a), Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [146] is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [31] is DISMISSED without prejudice.

DATED this ____ day of January, 2019.

_________________________

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

Chief United States District Judge
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of mPhase Technologies, Inc., a New Jersey corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Ronald A.
Durando, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge:

|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 ofthe Company.

/s/ Ronald A. Durando 
Ronald A. Durando 
Chief Executive Officer

October 13, 2010

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

                    

<ARTICLE>     5                     
       

<S>                             <C>              

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         3,038
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  50,479
<ALLOWANCES>                                   7,610
<INVENTORY>                                    31,333
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               80,559
<PP&E>                                         60,645
<DEPRECIATION>                                 11,595
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 197,746
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          39,487
<BONDS>                                        124,049
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     28,940
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   197,746
<SALES>                                        73,180
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               73,180
<CGS>                                          57,676
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  67,783
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,635
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               122
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,812
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,547)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (641)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (906)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (906)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________ No. 96-60757

_______________

ADRON P. GARDNER,

PetitionerCross-Respondent,
VERSUS
HELMERICH & PAYNE INTERNATIONAL DRILLING COMPANY and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA,RespondentsCross-Petitioners, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent.

_________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board

(94-4028)

_________________________ October 10, 1997 Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *2

We have reviewed the briefs and pertinent portions of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. We conclude that the findings of fact made by the administrative law judge are supported by substantial evidence. We see no reversible error in the legal determinations that were made regarding the findings of disability or in the calculation of wage rate. The petition for review and cross -petition for review, accordingly, are DENIED.
Case 2:14-cv-01719-BR Document 30 Filed 04/01/16 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:14-cv-01719-BR Document 30 Filed 04/01/16 Page 2 of 2