alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>








CONTACT:  Michael P. Hawks                      (NYSE -- BMC)
          (612) 851-6030                    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



                             BMC ANNOUNCES ESTABLISHMENT
                   OF HUNGARIAN APERTURE MASK INSPECTION FACILITY


March 17, 1997- Minneapolis, MN -- BMC Industries, Inc. today announced the 
establishment of a subsidiary in Hungary which will operate a low-cost 
aperture mask inspection facility under the name Buckbee-Mears Hungary.

Buckbee-Mears Hungary has purchased an existing facility in Tatabanya, 
Hungary for its operations.  Buckbee-Mears Hungary will inspect high 
resolution computer monitor masks manufactured at the Company's Mullheim, 
Germany facility.  The Company anticipates that the Hungarian facility will 
begin inspecting masks during the third quarter of 1997.

Paul B. Burke, BMC's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer stated that, "BMC's 
decision to establish a Hungarian subsidiary was driven by the desire to 
lower inspection costs while maintaining the highest quality standards."

BMC Industries, Inc. is one of the world's largest manufacturers of aperture 
masks for color picture tubes used in televisions and computer monitors. 
Through Vision-Ease, the Company is also a leading producer of polycarbonate, 
glass and plastic eyewear lenses.  The common stock of the Company is traded 
on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "BMC".

                                      -30-
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, John P. Hewitt, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of GameTechInternational, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report; and
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations, and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport.
4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant andhave:
      a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;
      b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and
      c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
      a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and reportfinancial information; and
      b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 15, 2003     /S/ John P. Hewitt  John P. Hewitt Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clifford Zane, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The count of the indictment charging defendant with depraved indifference murder was not defective since it alleged the mental element in the words of the statute *(see, People v Fitzgerald,*45 NY2d 574, 578, *rearg denied*46 NY2d 837). Moreover, by pleading guilty, defendant waived any challenge to the sufficiency of the factual allegations in the indictment *(see, People v Cohen,*52 NY2d 584, 587; *People v Thompson,*132 AD2d 885, *revd on other grounds*72 NY2d 410, *rearg denied*73 NY2d 870).

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the count of the indictment charging defendant with felony murder for having caused the death of a fireman in the course of and in furtherance of the crime of arson. We reject defendant’s contention that the felony murder statute, insofar as it applies to the crime of arson, is unconstitutionally vague because it does not define what is meant by "in the course of and in furtherance of such crime”. (Penal Law § 125.25 [3].) The statute is sufficiently definite. It is illogical to interpret the statute, as defendant contends, as meaning that the death must occur at the time of the commission of the crime; it need only be *caused*by the commission of the crime. We agree with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that the felony murder statute, as applied to the crime of arson, is constitutional *(see, Bethea v Scully,*834 F2d 257).

The suppression court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the statement that he gave to the police. The finding of the suppression court that the statement was voluntarily given after defendant waived his constitutional rights is supported by the evidence. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kasler, J. — manslaughter, first degree; arson, third degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report, incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K, into the Company's
previously filed Registration Statements on Form  S-8 (No. 33-41360, No. 33-
57609, No. 33-57607, No. 33-45564, No. 333-27783 and No 333-92175) and on Form
S-3 (No. 33-54747 and No. 33-65293).

/s/  ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
December 13, 1999

                                                                             106
EXHIBIT 10.28





EXTENSION
AGREEMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


between James P. Ulm, II (Executive) and


Pogo Producing Company, a Delaware corporation (Company),


dated effective February 1, 2002





WHEREAS, Executive and Company are parties to an Executive Employment Agreement bearing an original Effective Date of
February 1, 2000; and





WHEREAS, February 1, 2002, (even date herewith) is hereby deemed to be the Renewal
Date in that Employment Agreement; and





WHEREAS, Executive and Company each wish to extend said Executive
Employment Agreement for an additional one-year period so as to terminate (unless further extended) two years thereafter, (to-wit January 31, 2004); and





WHEREAS, Company desires to retain the services of Executive for the benefit of Company and its shareholders, and desires to induce Executive to remain in its employ for that extended time period; and





WHEREAS, Executive has agreed to continue to serve as an employee of Company for the period specified herein from and
after the date of this Extension Agreement; and





WHEREAS, Company and Executive desire to enter into this Extension
Agreement in order to formally secure for Company the benefit of the experience and abilities of Executive, and to set forth the agreements and understandings of Company and Executive; and





WHEREAS, Company has advised Executive that execution and performance of this Extension Agreement by Company has been duly authorized and approved by all requisite corporate
action on the part of the Company.




---




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises and agreements
herein contained, and in consideration of the sum of $10 paid by Company to Executive, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged by Executive, Executive and Company do hereby agree as follows:





1.    The Executive Employment Agreement between Executive and Company bearing an Effective Date of February 1, 2000 and a Renewal Date which
is deemed herein to be February 1, 2002, is hereby extended for an additional one-year period commencing February 1, 2003 and ending January 31, 2004 unless such employment period is hereafter further extended for an additional period by both
Executive and Company.





2.    All provisions of the Executive Employment Agreement between Executive and
Company dated as of February 1, 2000, and as it is herein amended, are continued in full force and effect without change as if the Executive Employment Agreement had been initially effective as of February 1, 2002.





POGO PRODUCING COMPANYBy:

/s/    JOHN O. MCCOY,
JR.John O. McCoy, Jr. Senior Vice President andChief
Administrative Officer





ATTEST:


/s/    JOEANN KINGDONAssistant Corporate Secretary





EMPLOYEE:/s/    JAMES P. ULM, IIJames P. Ulm, II Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
Case 1:07-cv-05313-AKH Document 10 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05313-AKH Document 10 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05313-AKH Document 10 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05313-AKH Document 10 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05313-AKH Document 10 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05313-AKH Document 10 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05313-AKH Document 10 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS

Liquidity

        Registrant receives $13,953 in contract payments every month from the
sale of Tanglefoot Apartments.  Registrant has very little liquidity because
most of this contract payment is used to make registrant's contract payment on
the apartments t o Mr. John Leefers of Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

        Approximately $1,411 of cash is received each month for payment of
principal and interest on Real Estate Contracts Receivable.


Capital Resources

        Capital resources have stayed about the same for the past years since
the principal asset of the registrant has been a 60 unit apartment complex, now
sold on contract.  The apartments were sold on contract to a good buyer who is
maintaining o r increasing their value through improvements.  The contract
allows for registrant to borrow money on the asset, if necessary.

Results of Operations

        The income from operations for the year ended September 30, 1996
increased $1,735 compared to the year ended September 30, 1995.

        Operating income decreased $4,532.  This was primarily due to a decrease
in interest income.  Interest income on Sale of Tanglefoot Apartment Contract
decreased due to a decrease in contract balance.

        Interest income will continue to decrease in the future.

        Operating expenses decreased $6,267.  The decrease resulted from the
following:

        Interest expense decreased $4,029 due to the reduction of the mortgage
balance.  Interest expense will continue to decrease in the future.

        Other operating expenses decreased $7,869 due to further reductions of
office expenses.

        Legal fees increased $4,826 due to prior years legal services for which
a bill was not received until this year.
GlaxoSmithKline plc S-8


 


Exhibit 4.9


 





AMENDMENT
NO. 3 


TO THE 


GSK PR 401(k)
PLAN 


(As
Amended and Restated Effective April 1, 2013)


 





 






  


Pursuant to resolutions of the Board of
Directors of GlaxoSmithKline Puerto Rico Inc. approved on July __, 2019, the GSK PR 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”) is amended
as follows, effective as of October 5, 2018:


 


Section 6.1.2 is hereby amended in its entirety
to read as follows:


 


“6.1.2                A Participant may elect to
receive his distribution, as paid to him or applied for his benefit upon Separation from Service, in any of the following
forms of distribution: 


 


		6.1.2.1	Effective on and after October 5, 2018, in partial distributions of no less than $10,000 per distribution.
No more than four (4) partial distributions may be elected by a Participant in any Plan Year. The portion of the Participant’s
Account that remains following a partial distribution shall continue to be adjusted to reflect any gains, losses, income and expenses
of any Investment Fund. At any time after having received one or more partial distributions, a Participant may elect, in the form
and manner required by the Committee, to receive his remaining Account paid in the form of a single sum payment or in installments
as permitted in accordance with this Section 6.1.2.



 


		6.1.2.2	A single sum payment.



 


		6.1.2.3	In annual installments over a period not extending beyond 20 years (or 5 years for distributions
made before January 1, 2016) or, if shorter, the life expectancy of the Participant or the joint life expectancy of the Participant
and the Participant’s beneficiary. Installments are an available form of benefit only if the Participant’s Account
is more than $5,000 (as determined pursuant to Section 6.1.1). While any annual installments remain unpaid, the value of the Participant’s
Account shall continue to be adjusted to reflect any gains, losses, income and expenses of the Investment Fund. A Participant may
elect, in the form and manner required by the Committee, to accelerate the payment of the Account and receive a single sum payment.”



  


Executed this ___ day of July, 2019.


 





	 	GlaxoSmithKline Puerto Rico Inc.,
	 	a GlaxoSmithKline company
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 



 





	 	Name:	 
	 	 	 
	 	Title:
#### GARVAN, Alien Property Custodian, v. COMMERCIAL TRUST CO. OF NEW JERSEY.

(District Court, D. New Jersey.

October 22, 1921.)

War <©=» 12—Claimants of property not entitled to intervene in action by Alien Property Custodian.

Claimants cannot intervené in a proceeding by the Alien Property Custodian to obtain possession of property, and bave litigated tbe question of ownership of the property in process of seizure, as this question can be litigated only after the demand of the Alien Property Custodian has been complied with, and then only by proceedings authorized by Trading with the Enemy Act, § 9, as amended by Act June 5, 1920.

In Equity. Suit by Francis P. Garvan, as Alien Property Custodian, against the Commercial Trust Company of New Jersey, in which Frederick Wesche and Charles J. Ahrenfeldt petition for intervention. Petition of intervention denied.

Affirmed Ahrenfeldt v. Miller (C. C. A.) 282 Fed. 944. See, also, 275 Fed. 841.

Selden Bacon, of New York City, for petitioners.

Elmer H. Geran, U. S. Atty., of Asbury Park, N. J., and Eucient H. Boggs and Dean Hill Stanley, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.

RELESTAB, District Judge.

At the time of the hearing of the rule to show cause granted in the above-entitled suit, Charles J. Ahrenfeldt and Frederick Wesche, the latter named with Helene J. von Schierholz in the trust agreement involved in such proceeding, presented their petitions for leave to intervene in said cause, praying an examination pro interesse suo to ascertain the interests and rights of each of them in the property covered by said agreement. Ahrenfeldt alleged that he was a separate and individual owner of a large part of said property. Wesche alleged that he was bailor and principal of the Commercial Trust Company, defendant herein, a separate beneficial owner of a large part of the securities and moneys held by said trust company under said agreement, and agent charged with the custody of said properties of his several principals, the said Charles J. Ahrenfeldt and Helene J. von Schierholz, and also of one Lucy von Uxküll-Gyllenband.

In the decision of the main case (opinion filed this day, 275 Fed. 841) it is held that under said trust agreement either Mrs. von Schierholz or *944Wesche could demand the possession of the properties therein covered, and that inasmuch as Mrs. von Schierholz was an enemy within the meaning and purpose of the Trading with the Enemy Act, it was the duty of the trust company to comply with the demands of the Alien Property Custodian and turn over such property to him, and that the question of other persons’ ownership or interest in said properties was irrelevant in such possessory proceedings.

The questions sought to be litigated by Wesche and Ahrenfeldt can be raised only after the demands of the Alien Property Custodian have been complied with, and by instituting the proceedings authorized by section 9 of the act, as amended June 5, 1920 (41 Stat. 977).

Their petitions to intervene in the present proceedings are denied.

£z^For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests *&*Indexes
Case 1:07-cv-05347-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05347-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05347-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05347-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05347-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 5 of 5
#                                                                         Bold Alligator 2012 Tests Navy/Marine Ability to Execute and Control Long Range Sea to Shore Raid                                                                    

##### by U.S. Fleet Forces Command Public Affairs and Outreach 

06 February 2011

Tags:
**Bold Alligator**Blue Green Team**24th Marine Expeditionary Unit**24 MEU**Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group**USS Gunston Hall (LSD 44)**USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7)**Fort Pickett**Exercise**Simulated Air-to-Ground Assault Raid
# C_2009093EN.01000101.xml

| 22.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/1

---

RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 3 April 2009

to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of De Nederlandsche Bank

(ECB/2009/8)

2009/C 93/01

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and national central banks are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and national central banks are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.

| (2) | On 12 July 2005, Josephus Andreas Nijhuis, registered accountant and chairman of the board of PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N.V. (‘PWC’), acting in his personal capacity, was appointed as the external auditor of De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) from the financial year 2005 for an indefinite period. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 12 July 2005, Josephus Andreas Nijhuis, registered accountant and chairman of the board of PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N.V. (‘PWC’), acting in his personal capacity, was appointed as the external auditor of De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) from the financial year 2005 for an indefinite period.

| (3) | Josephus Andreas Nijhuis resigned from PWC with effect from 1 October 2008. It is therefore necessary for DNB to appoint new auditors. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Josephus Andreas Nijhuis resigned from PWC with effect from 1 October 2008. It is therefore necessary for DNB to appoint new auditors.

| (4) | DNB wishes to select PWC as its external auditors for the financial years 2008 to 2011, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

DNB wishes to select PWC as its external auditors for the financial years 2008 to 2011,

HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N.V. should be appointed as the external auditors of De Nederlandsche Bank for the financial years 2008 to 2011.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 3 April 2009.

The President of the ECB

Jean-Claude TRICHET

---
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6420 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to the applicability 

of identity theft guidelines to creditors. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2010 

Mr. ADLER of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, and Mr. SIMPSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to 

the applicability of identity theft guidelines to creditors. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Red Flag Program 

5 Clarification Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SCOPE OF CERTAIN CREDITOR REQUIREMENTS. 

7 (a) AMENDMENT TO FCRA.—Section 615(e) of the 

8 Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681m(e)) is 

9 amended by adding at the end the following: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6420 IH

1 ‘‘(4) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this subsection, 

2 the term ‘creditor’— 

3 ‘‘(A) means a creditor, as defined in sec4 tion 702 of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act 

5 (15 U.S.C. 1691a), that regularly and in the 

6 ordinary course of business— 

7 ‘‘(i) obtains or uses consumer reports, 

8 directly or indirectly, in connection with a 

9 credit transaction; 

10 ‘‘(ii) furnishes information to con11 sumer reporting agencies, as described in 

12 section 623, in connection with a credit 

13 transaction; or 

14 ‘‘(iii) advances funds to or on behalf 

15 of a person, based on an obligation of the 

16 person to repay the funds or repayable 

17 from specific property pledged by or on be18 half of the person; 

19 ‘‘(B) does not include a creditor described 

20 in subparagraph (A)(iii) that advances funds on 

21 behalf of a person for expenses incidental to a 

22 service provided by the creditor to that person; 

23 and 

24 ‘‘(C) includes any other type of creditor, as 

25 defined in that section 702, as the agency deVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:23 Nov 18, 2010 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6420.IH H6420

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6420 IH

1 scribed in paragraph (1) having authority over 

2 that creditor may determine appropriate by rule 

3 promulgated by that agency, based on a deter4 mination that such creditor offers or maintains 

5 accounts that are subject to a reasonably fore6 seeable risk of identity theft.’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 this section shall become effective on the date of enact9 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS