alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10_8.htm


Exhibit 10.8


 




 CONFIRMATION OF ADVANCE







Institution:                      Institution Name                                                                Advance Number:                                           Example


         Address                                                                               Settlement Date:                                           MM/DD/YYYY


                                         City, State   Zip                                                                   Maturity Date:                                              MM/DD/YYYY


Customer ID:                  Account Number












The Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka (FHLBank) hereby issues an advance on behalf of the above institution.


Terms of the advance shall be:








	
Advance Type:

	
Regular Fixed








	
Amount:

	
$XXX,XXX.00








	
Rate:

	
X.XXX% - Interest payable monthly and at maturity








	
  

	
(Interest accrued on an Actual/Actual day basis.)













      Prepayment Fee: The prepayment fee is the present value (discounted at the reference rate) of the difference between (a) the scheduled interest payments to be paid on the advance through remaining maturity and (b) the interest payments which would be collected on the advance through remaining maturity if it bore interest at the reference rate. The reference rate is the effective yield of a Federal Home Loan Bank obligation having the closest remaining maturity and coupon to the advance being prepaid. If the reference rate is greater than the rate on the advance, no fee is charged.









Other:  Past due principal and interest will be charged interest at a rate equal to 315 basis points above the previousbusiness day's daily effective federal funds rate as provided in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15.



























Lending Officer


Date












CONFIRMATORY APPLICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT


 


The undersigned hereby confirms that it has applied for the Advance referred to above, and that it has accepted and unconditionally agrees to repay such Advance upon the terms and conditions stated above and in the Advance, Pledge and Security Agreement between the parties and FHLBank’s Member Products Policy as amended from time to time.


 












Date: _____________________ By: ________________________________ _____________________________


              (Signature)                                                                 (Title)







(Please return one signed copy of FHLBank within (5) business days)
Document

Exhibit 10.15




Summary of Executive Officer Compensation Arrangements


In addition to the compensation arrangements filed as other exhibits to this annual report, Pyxus International, Inc. (the “Company”) has the following compensation arrangements with its named executive officers.


Compensation Arrangements for Named Executive Officers


The board of directors sets the annual base salary for each of the Company’s chief executive officer, chief financial officer and its next most highly compensated executive officer (such three officers, the “named executive officers”).  As of June 1, 2021, the annual base salary rates for the named executive officers were as follows:




						
	Named Executive Officer
	Base Salary

	J. Pieter Sikkel	$725,000 	
	Joel L. Thomas	$442,385 	
		
	William L. O’Quinn, Jr.	$345,050
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 17, 2009 

p0610 

Order 

 

June 17, 2009 

137980 

AMERISURE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/ 

Cross-Defendant, 

v SC: 137980 

 COA: 279588 

Livingston CC: 05-021833-NF 

SHARON LAMSON, Next Friend of the 

Estate of JAMES RAYMOND LAMSON, Legally 

Incapacitated Person, 

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/ 

Cross-Plaintiff/Appellant, 

and 

AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant/Cross-Defendant/ 

Appellee, 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH, 

 Intervenor. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 18, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

HATHAWAY, J., would grant leave to appeal.
# C_2021029EN.01000301.xml

| 26.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/3

---

Winding-up proceedings

Winding-up proceedings in respect of Nederlandsche Algemene Maatschappij van Levensverzekering ‘Conservatrix’ N.V. (the ‘Company’)

(Publication made in accordance with Article 280 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II))

(2021/C 29/03)

| Insurance undertaking | Nederlandsche Algemene Maatschappij van Levensverzekering ‘Conservatrix’ N.V. |
| --- | --- |
| Date, entry into force and nature of decision | 8 December 2020 |
| Competent authorities | Court of Amsterdam, delegated judges mr. M. de Vries and mr. A.E. de Vos |
| Supervisory authority | Court of Amsterdam, delegated judges mr. M. de Vries and mr. A.E. de Vos |
| Trustees appointed | mr. drs. W.J.M. van Andel and mr. E.L. Zetteler |
| Applicable law | Dutch Law |

Insurance undertaking

Nederlandsche Algemene Maatschappij van Levensverzekering ‘Conservatrix’ N.V.

Date, entry into force and nature of decision

8 December 2020

Competent authorities

Court of Amsterdam, delegated judges mr. M. de Vries and mr. A.E. de Vos

Supervisory authority

Court of Amsterdam, delegated judges mr. M. de Vries and mr. A.E. de Vos

Trustees appointed

mr. drs. W.J.M. van Andel and mr. E.L. Zetteler

Applicable law

Dutch Law

---
# C_2021104EN.01000101.xml

| 26.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9585 — Outotec/Metso (Mineral Business))

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 104/01)

On 13 May 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9585. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9585. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herman Lee INGRAM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6108.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 8, 2011.

Decided: April 22, 2011.

Herman Lee Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia L. Norman, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Herman Lee Ingram appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Ingram,*No. 3:05-cr-00361-HEH-1 (E.D.Va. Dec. 21, 2010). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Charles R. Waldron, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of Learning Tree International, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter March 28, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of the operations of Learning Tree International, Inc.



|            |  |  |  |     |  |                        
|----------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|May 6, 2008 |  |  |  |     |  |                        
|            |  |  | 
|            |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Charles R. Waldron 
|            |  |  |  |     |  | Charles R. Waldron     
|            |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6282

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ELSA G. MONTECINOS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (3:08-cr-00590-CMC-17; 3:12-cv-01978-CMC)

Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 5, 2013

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elsa G. Montecinos, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Mark C. 

Moore, Stanley D. Ragsdale, John David Rowell, Assistant United 

States Attorneys, James Chris Leventis, Jr., OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Elsa G. Montecinos seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Montecinos has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
# C_2021413EN.01001001.xml

| 12.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/10

---

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 and Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1716 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Nicaragua apply

(2021/C 413/08)

The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).

The legal basis for this processing operation are Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 (2), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1800 (3), and Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1716 (4), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Nicaragua.

The controller of this processing operation is the Department RELEX.1.C in the Directorate-General for External Relations - RELEX of the General Secretariat of the Council (GSC), that can be contacted at:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The GSC’s Data Protection Officer can be contacted at:

Data Protection Officer

data.protection@consilium.europa.eu

The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2021/1800, and Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1716.

The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil the listing criteria as laid down in Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 and Regulation (EU) 2019/1716.

The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the statement of reasons and any other data related thereto.

The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.

Without prejudice to restrictions pursuant to Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, the exercise of the rights of the data subjects such as the right of access, as well as the rights to rectification or to object will be answered in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.

Without prejudice to any judicial, administrative or non-judicial remedy, data subjects may lodge a complaint with the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 (edps@edps.europa.eu).

---

(1)  OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39.

(2)  OJ L 262, 15.10.2019, p. 58.

(3)  OJ L 361, 12.10.2021, p. 52.

(4)  OJ L 262, 15.10.2019, p. 1.

---
**Exhibit 31. 1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,**

**AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002.**

I, Ray Brunner, certify that: 

1.I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Design Within Reach, 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 theperiod covered by this report; 

3. [Intentionally omitted]; 

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)) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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 is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) designed such internal controlover financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

c) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’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 occurredduring 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 controlover financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation 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): 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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. 

Date: April 28, 2008 

 

 

25
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUAR.D

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD.

Complainant,

vs.

WHITNEY BENJAMIN REITER,

Respondent.

Docket Number 2023-0157

CG Enforcement Activity Number 7665917

Br': Honorable Waltcr J. Brudzinski, Chief Administrative Lax Judqe

Appearances:

CWO NiIICIIAEL A. MICUCCI

USCG Sector Miami

For the Coast Guard

WHITNEY BENJAMIN REITER, Pra se

For the Respondent

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: Aoril 21. 2023
CONSENI' ORDER APPROVING SETT LEMENT AGREEMENT

On April 20,2023, the United States Coast Guard Sector Miami (Coast Guard) issued a

Complaint against WHITNEY BENJAMIN REITER (Respondent) seeking to revoke his

Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC) for drug use in violation of 46 U.S.C. $ 7704(b) and 46

C.F.R. $ 5.35. Specifically, the Coast Guard alleges Respondent took a periodic drug test

pursuant to 46 C.F.R. Part l6 on February 24,2023, in which his specimen tested positive for

cocaine metabolites.

Also on April 20,2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of

Settlement Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order to be approved as a settlement ofthe case

under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms ofthe Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, the Settlement Agreement is

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated Apnl2l,2023

New York, NY

7/.h./ Ar+;-A

HON. WALTER J. BRUDZINSKI

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ruDGE

LNITED STATES COAST GUARD

2
#### Millenium Environmental, Inc., Appellant, v City of Long Beach of State of New York, Respondent.

Submitted February 5, 2007;

decided March 29, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution and is not an order of the type provided for in CPLR 5602 (a) (2).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                          13,731
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,128
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        435
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,911
<PP&E>                                          64,624
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,437
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,098
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,789
<BONDS>                                            757
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,523
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,543
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,098
<SALES>                                         68,146
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                68,146
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,928
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (165)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,194
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,739
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,455
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62
        

</TABLE>