alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.14






 Confidential Treatment Requested by Reynolds Consumer Products Inc. 

Pursuant to 17 C.F.R. Section 200.83 
  

 Exhibit 10.14 
 



 
  

			
	TO:	  	LANCE MITCHELL
		
	FROM:	  	STEVE ESTES
		
	DATE:	  	JULY 8, 2019
		
	SUBJECT:	  	PLANNED ISSUANCE OF RESTRICTED STOCK

  
  

As we have discussed, a critical component of our ongoing business strategy for Reynolds Consumer Products LLC will be to explore opportunities for the
business that could lead to an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of the business or potentially a divestiture of the associated business entities. Your assistance is needed by Reynolds as we work through this process to help prepare the business for a
successful transaction. 
 If the IPO is successful, the company whose shares are registered in the IPO will issue you Restricted Stock at the completion of
the IPO. The number of shares in this grant equals $1,550,000 divided by the IPO price as of the date of the grant, rounded to the nearest whole share. Vesting for the restricted stock will occur over a 3-year
period with 1/3 vesting after 12-months from the successful IPO; 1/3 vesting after 24-months from the successful IPO; and, 1/3 vesting after 36-months from the successful IPO. You must be an employee of the Company or one of its affiliates on the applicable vesting date to receive such shares. 

Should there be a business sale instead of an IPO, you will receive $1,550,000 in cash in lieu of Restricted Stock. For purposes hereof, a business sale means
a sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the Company or a sale of more than 50% of the equity of the Company or such entity. This cash payment will be made in the following manner: 

1⁄2 Payable
30-days post-closing of the sale 
 1⁄2 Payable 180-days post-closing of the sale 
 This memo does not change your
status as an “at-will” employee and does not guarantee your employment for any specific period of time. The Company reserves the right to terminate you at any time and for any or no reason. Any
Restricted Stock issued or cash payment made pursuant to this memo shall be subject to regular tax withholdings and other authorized deductions and will not be treated as compensation for any purpose under any benefit plans or programs, unless
statutorily required. 
 This memo is provided to summarize the agreement that has been reached in this regard between the Company and the employee. Should
an IPO be completed, a formal grant letter for the Restricted Stock will be provided to the employee that documents all terms and conditions related to the grant. 

//s// Steve Estes
- How To Appeal 
    - Court Forms  and Fees        - Court Forms
      - Fee Schedule
      - Filing Fee 
    - Court Rules and Procedures        - Rules of Practice  and Procedure
      - Procedural Requirements for Staff Conferences
      - Internal Operating Procedures
      - Rules of Admission  and Practice
      - Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability
      - E-Filing Rules
      - Court Process
      - Court Efforts to Ensure Compliance with Court Rules 
    - Information About Practitioners        - Search List of Practitioners
      - Disciplinary Action
      - Key Points in Finding a Representative
      - Compendium of Disciplinary Grievances 
    - Orders and Opinions        - Miscellaneous Orders
      - Ceremonial Orders
      - Opinions and Full Court Orders
      - Search Decisions and Opinions
      - Recent Decisions / Opinions
      - Case Archives 
    - Active Panel Cases 
    - Stayed Cases 
    - Class Action Cases 
    - Electronic Filing 
    - Docket Search 
    - Oral Arguments        - Schedule
      - Oral Arguments via YouTube Live
      - Audio/Video
      - Oral Argument Educational Outreach 

### Federal Personnel Forms

    - OPM Employment Policy FAQs
    - Declaration for Federal Employment (OF 306)

### Judicial Vacancies

    - Total Current Vacancies - 0
    - Total Nominees Pending - 0

### New Hires

    - USCAVC New Hire Forms

USCAVC 16thJudicial ConferenceSeptember 19-20, 2024

Watch CAVC Oral Arguments on YouTube

Changes to Court Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability - EffectiveJanuary 10, 2024

In the News: Articles

----
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6237 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 668
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6237

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 17, 2010

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                            December 1, 2010

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1351 2nd Street in Napa, California, as the ``Tom Kongsgaard Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. TOM KONGSGAARD POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1351 2nd Street in Napa, California, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Tom Kongsgaard Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Tom 
Kongsgaard Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 668

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6237

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1351 2nd Street in Napa, California, as the ``Tom Kongsgaard Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            December 1, 2010

                       Reported without amendment
```
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10473]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-379-000]


Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

April 23, 2001.
    Take notice that on April 18, 2001, Tuscarora Gas Transmission 
Company (Tuscarora) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Original Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 51, to become effective 
on May 18, 2001.
    Tuscarora states that the purpose of this filing is revise its 
hourly delivery requirement in order to provide natural gas 
transportation service to new electric generating facilities.
    Tuscarora states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all 
affected customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via 
the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10473 Filed 4-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                             Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                         2,425
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 38,730
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    4,493
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              50,765
<PP&E>                                        97,982
<DEPRECIATION>                                50,912
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               195,993
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         26,122
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           1
<OTHER-SE>                                    16,344
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 195,993
<SALES>                                      159,687
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             159,687
<CGS>                                         98,170
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 98,170
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              49,240
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            12,051
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  226
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              226
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     226
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.000
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.000



</TABLE>
- Home
- The Department

# Our Mission

## **Our Mission**

Protect the Congress – its Members, employees, visitors, and facilities – so it can fulfill its constitutional and legislative responsibilities in a safe, secure and open environment.

## **Our Vision**

To be nationally recognized as a results-oriented law enforcement agency that demonstrates the highest standards of professionalism, security, safety, and management.

## **Our Values**

The USCP’s core values define our common beliefs and behavior as well as how

we conduct ourselves in our work and interactions: Professionalism, Pride, and Effectiveness.

## The Department

              - Our Mission
              - Our History
              - Executive Team
              - United States Capitol Police Memorial Fund
              - Office of Inspector General
              - Bureaus and Offices
              - Human Capital Strategic Plan
              - Oversight
              - USCP Department Strategic Plan
- Home

# Website Problem

Thank you for taking the time to visit our website. If you have encountered a problem while using this website or have a suggestion about how it can be improved to better suit your needs, please let us know.

## Contact Us

              - Report a Complaint
              - Doing Business with USCP
              - Frequently Asked Questions
              - Website Problem
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with this Annual Report of Royal Spring Water, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-KSB for the year ending August 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alexander Hazan,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to
the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.           Such
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ending August 31, 2007, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ending
August 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Royal Spring Water, Inc.








Dated:
February 4, 2008





ROYAL
SPRING WATER, INC.





By:/s/
Alex Hazan


Alex
Hazan


Chief
Executive Officer and


Chief
Financial Office
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

March 31, 2014

Order 

March 31, 2014

148373(62)

NAUM THOMAI and ZHULIETA THOMAI,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v

MIBA HIDRAMECHANICA CORPORATION

and CORPORATIONS X AND Y,

Defendants-Appellants.

SC: 148373

COA: 310755

Macomb CC: 2011-001947-NO

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Self-Insurers’ 

Association to participate as amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on 

March 31, 2014, by the Michigan Self-Insurers’ Association on the application for leave 

to appeal is accepted for filing.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00411- CR

Manuel Ruiz Constancio, App ellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TO M GREEN CO UNTY, 51ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. A-1 1-0 535- S, H ONO RAB LE JAY K . WEATH ERB Y , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Manuel Ruiz Constancio pleade d g uilty in 2011 to robber y and was place d on defe rre d adjudication community service for ten y ear s. I n 2013, the State moved to re voke his probation and to adjudicate his g uilt of robber y . I n 2014, the court held a hear ing and found true the State’s alleg ations that appellant violated the terms of his probation by eng ag ing in indece ncy with a child by contac t, failing to c omplete ten hours per month of community -ser vice work, failing to 1 repor t to his probation office r once, and failing to timely complete a class conce rning theft by chec k. T h e trial court found appellant g uilty of robber y and assessed sentenc e at ten y ear s in prison. He appea led.

This Court has affirmed a conviction for indece ncy with a child by sexual contac t. See

1 Constancio v. State , No. 03-14-00221- CR (Tex. App.—Austi n Aug . 28, 2015, no pet.).Appellant’s court-a ppointed attorney

has filed a brief concluding that this a ppeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the require ments of Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion o f t h e rec ord demonstrating why there are no arg uable g rounds to be adva nced. See also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State , 573 S.W .2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jack son v. State , 485 S.W .2d 553 (Tex. Crim. Ap p . 1972); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

We g rante d appellant’ s motion for extension of time to file a pro se brief, permitting him to file a brief

by November

19, 2015. He ha s not filed a brie f. We have revie wed the rec ord an d the Anders brief and ag ree that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. We aff irm the judg ment of conviction and g rant c ounsel’s motion to withdraw a s appellant’s a ttorney

.

J eff Rose, Chief J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Pemberton a nd Field Affir med Filed: January

13, 2016 Do Not Publish

2
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6392 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

5003 Westfields Boulevard in Centreville, Virginia, as the ‘‘Colonel 

George Juskalian Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Mr. WOLF (for himself, Mr. PERRIELLO, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. 

WITTMAN, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, Mr. 

SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. FORBES, Mr. NYE, and Mr. GOODLATTE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 5003 Westfields Boulevard in Centreville, Virginia, as the ‘‘Colonel George Juskalian Post Office 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COLONEL GEORGE JUSKALIAN POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 5003 Westfields Boulevard in 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6392 IH

1 Centreville, Virginia, shall be known and designated as the 

2 ‘‘Colonel George Juskalian Post Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Colonel George 

7 Juskalian Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
AMENDMENT TO DEED OF TRUST NOTE

         This AMENDMENT TO DEED OF TRUST NOTE ("Amendment") is dated as of March
26,  1998 by and  between  James  Roth,  an  individual  ("Mr.  Roth"),  and GRC
International, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("GRC").

         WHEREAS,  James and Marilyn R. Roth (collectively,  "Maker") executed a
Deed of Trust Note dated as of July 9, 1992 in the principal  amount of $230,000
("Note") to the order of GRC International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, or its
successors or assigns ("GRC") or any subsequent holder of the Note ("Payee").

         NOW  THEREFORE  IT IS HEREBY  AGREED,  that on July 1,  1998,  GRC will
forgive one half of the outstanding principal amount of the Note, subject to Mr.
Roth's continued  compliance with his various  agreements through that date. The
remaining  one half of the Note will then  cease to bear  interest,  and will be
forgiven  on July 1,  1999,  subject  to  GRC's  approval  based  on Mr.  Roth's
compliance with his various agreements through that date.


Nothing else is hereby amended.


IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties  hereto have executed this Amendment as of the
date first set forth above.

ATTEST:                                              GRC INTERNATIONAL, INC.


                                                     By:
---------------------------------                         ----------------------
Thomas E. McCabe                                          Joseph R. Wright, Jr.
Sr. Vice President, General Counsel & Sec'y               Chairman of the Board


WITNESS                                              EMPLOYEE


--------------------------------                     ---------------------------
                                                     James Roth

APPROVED AND RATIFIED BY THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
GRC INTERNATIONAL, INC.


--------------------------------
Leslie B. Disharoon
Chairman, Compensation Committee
#### O’BRIEN et al., Respondents, v. OTTENBURG et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

June 15, 1894.)

Action by Miles M. O'Brien and another, receivers, etc., against Simon Ottenburg and others. L. Marshall, for respondents.

Ño opinion. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements. and case sent back to special term for further action. For decision at special term, see 28 N. Y. Supp, 605.
Exhibit 13.2

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Sanofi, a French
société anonyme (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 5, 2012



By:

/s/ Jérôme ContamineJérôme Contamine
Executive Vice President Chief Financial Officer(1)


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



|(1) | Principal financial officer.
|--- | ----------------------------



1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rogelio OROZCO-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Manuel Rodriguez-Gutierrez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40878

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*440John Andrew Kuehera, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Rogelio Orozco-Rodriguez (Orozco) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Orozco has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.