alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exhibit102.htm















Exhibit 10.2





August 24, 2010





Robert D. Woltil

P.O. Box 1269

Indian Rocks Beach, Florida  33785-1269









Dear Bob:





On behalf of Technology Research Corporation (TRC), I am pleased to offer you the position of Vice President Finance/CFO.  Your annual salary will be $158,000.  You will also receive an Incentive Stock Option grant of 30,000 shares of TRC common stock, with
an exercise price set at the closing stock price of TRC’s common stock on your first day of employment which will be September 1, 2010.  That will also be the grant date of the stock options. These stock options will vest as follows: 10,000 shares vest immediately, with the remaining 20,000 shares vesting over a three year period, one third on each subsequent anniversary of the grant date. Vested options will be eligible to be exercised over the 10 year term of the stock option.





In addition to your salary, you will receive an annualized incentive bonus plan effective with TRC’s FY2011 that begins on April 1, 2010 on a pro-rated basis for the period July 20, 2010 to March 31, 2011.





TRC offers the following benefits: group health, dental and life insurance, short and long term disability coverage, tuition assistance, and a 401K plan.  With the exception of the 401K, which is available on the first day of the month following your date of hire, benefits are eligible to commence the 1st day
of employment.  You will receive 3 weeks of vacation upon acceptance of this offer.





Please return a signed copy, acknowledging and accepting this offer.  Our offer will become effective upon approval by the Board of Directors.  We look forward to your joining the TRC team.  If you have any questions about this offer or TRC, please free to discuss these with myself or Ann Lockwich.









Sincerely,                                                                           Acknowledged
and Accepted by:





/s/  Owen Farren

Owen Farren                                                                           /s/
Robert D. Woltil

President, CEO and Chairman                                               Robert D. Woltil





cc:   Ann C. Lockwich

        Director, Human Resources
Mr. Chris Kirkpatrick

Secretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

1155 21’Street,N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

DDR Rule Filing: 2016-02Re: Amendments to DTCC Data Repository (U.S.) LLC Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) Pursuant to Section 5c(c) (1) of the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission Regulation § 40.6

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Section 5c(cXl) ofthe Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) Regulation 40.6, DTCC Data Repository (U.S.) LLC (“DDR”) submits, by written certification, amendments to the Fee Schedule for the period starting

on October 1, 2016.

The newly revised fcc schedule continues to comply with CFTC Regulation § 49.27(b) (1), which

states that any fees or charges imposed by a registered SDR shall be equitable and established in a unifonn and nondiscriminatory manner. The Fee Schedule applies to all DDR Users regardless of registration status, reduces the threshold for charging position maintenance fees from 1,000 to 500, imposes an annual account management fee on all account holders regardless of number of positions, contains a long term commitment option and charges Clearers for submission of cleared

positions.DDR certifies that these amendments comply with the Commodity Exchange Act and the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission thereunder. These changes have been communicated to Users and discussions are ongoing. DDR further certifies that, concurrent with this filing today, a

copy of this submission will posted on its website and may be accessed at: hup://www.dtcc.com/legil/important-noticcs?subsidiaty=DerivSERV. DDR intends to implement this amended Fee Schedule on October 1, 2016.
Debra W. Cook

Counsel, DDR

Enclosures
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: Ricardo Estrada v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00650

- CR

Trial court case number: 67751

Trial court: 239th District Court of Brazoria County

On May 6, 2014, we entered an order abating this appeal and directing the trial court to provide a written judgment reflecting its oral pronouncements for count one of appellant’s

conviction

. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P RO

. a rt. 42.01. The supplemental clerk’s record filed on May 8, 2014 contains the requested written judgment. Accordingly, we REINSTATE this case on the

Court’s active docket

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May13, 2014
SUBMISSION COVER SHEET

Registered Entity Identifier Code (optional) Date: August 21, 2015

I M P O R T A N T: CHECK BOX IF CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT IS REQUESTED. 

ORGANIZATION ICE Trade Vault, LLC

 FILING AS A: DCM SEF DCO X SDR ECM/SPDC 

TYPE OF FILING

 Rules and Rule Amendments 

 X Certification under § 40.6 (a) or § 41.24 (a)

 “Non-Material Agricultural Rule Change” under § 40.4 (b)(5)

 Notification under § 40.6 (d)

 Request for Approval under § 40.4 (a) or § 40.5 (a)

 Advance Notice of SIDCO Rule Change under § 40.10 (a)

 Products

 Certification under § 39.5(b), § 40.2 (a), or § 41.23 (a)

 Swap Class Certification under § 40.2 (d)

 Request for Approval under § 40.3 (a)

 Novel Derivative Product Notification under § 40.12 (a)

RULE NUMBERS

ICE Trade Vault, LLC Fee Schedule and Rulebook

DESCRIPTION

ICE Trade Vault, LLC has amended its Fee Schedule to address repository fees for swaps and 

options in the foreign exchange and interest rate asset classes. ICE Trade Vault, LLC has also 

amended its Rulebook to address reporting and recordkeeping requirements for swaps and 

options in the foreign exchange and interest asset classes. This amended Fee Schedule and 

Rulebook are scheduled to be effective on September 4, 2015.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 14  CODE OF ETHICS FOR SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICERS

This code of ethics for Senior Financial Officers has been adopted by the Board
of Directors of GFY Foods, Inc. ("the Company") to promote honest and ethical
conduct, proper disclosure of financial information in the Company's reports,
and compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations by the Company's
senior officers who have financial responsibilities.

                                  Applicability

As used in this code, the term Senior Financial Officer means the Corporation's
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Controller.

                            Principles and Practices

In performing his or her duties, each of the Senior Financial Officers must:

1.   Maintain high standards of honest and ethical conduct and avoid any actual
     or apparent conflict of interest.

2.   Report to the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors (or persons
     performing the equivalent functions) any conflict of interest that may
     arise and any material transaction or relationship that reasonably could be
     expected to give rise to a conflict,

3.   Provide, or cause to be provided, full, fair, accurate, timely and
     understandable disclosure in reports and documents that the Company files
     with the SEC and other regulatory organizations, State and Federal, and in
     other public communications.

4.   Comply and take all reasonable actions to cause others to comply with
     applicable governmental laws, rules, regulations and

5.   Promptly report violations to the appropriate committee of the Board of
     Directors.

6.   Senior Financial Officers must also comply with the Code of Ethics and
     Standards of Conduct applicable to the Corporation's Directors, officers
     and employees generally.

                                     Waiver

Any request for a waiver of any provision of this code must be in writing and
addressed to the Audit Committee. Waivers of the Senior Financial Officers code
of conduct in registered public companies must be reported on Form 8-K to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

                          Compliance and Accountability

The Audit Committee will assess compliance with this code, report material
violations to the Board of Directors and recommend to the Board appropriate
action.

Approved:

/s/ Edward Schwalb                                          Date: June 18, 2004
--------------------------------------------
Edward Schwalb, CEO and CFO
(309712711.1 )

 (TP ICAP Classification: Confidential)
# C_2022128EN.01001402.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Scania and Others v Commission

(Case T-799/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Truck manufacturers market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Agreements and concerted practices in relation to the prices of trucks, the timing for the introduction of emission technologies and the passing on to customers of the costs relating to those technologies - ‘Hybrid’ procedure staggered over time - Presumption of innocence - Principle of impartiality - Charter of Fundamental Rights - Single and continuous infringement - Restriction of competition by object - Geographic scope of the infringement - Fine - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 128/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Scania AB (Södertälje, Sweden), Scania CV AB (Södertälje), Scania Deutschland GmbH (Koblenz, Germany) (represented by: D. Arts, F. Miotto, C. Pommiès, K. Schillemans, C. Langenius, L. Ulrichs, P. Hammarskiöld, S. Falkner and N. De Backer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Farley and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 6467 final of 27 September 2017, relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) (Case AT.39824 — Trucks) or, in the alternative, a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Scania AB, Scania CV AB and Scania Deutschland GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Scania AB, Scania CV AB and Scania Deutschland GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.

---
153 So. 648

#### SMITH et al. v. STONE.

7 Div. 235.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 8, 1934.

*230Irby A. Keener, of Centre, Mark B. Eu-banks, of Rome, and C. B. Sims, of Centre, for appellants.

Hugh Reed, of Centre, for appellee.

GARDNER, Justice.

Upon a jury trial in the circuit court the will of Mary J. Chandler was sustained, and contestants appeal.

The principal insistence by counsel for appellants relates to. the matter of due execution of the will. It appears that decedent in November, 1913, executed the will which was witnessed by E. W. Brannon and J. P. Farill, and wherein J. N. Webb and D. O. Preskitt were named executors. But in March, 1929, some four years previous to her death, she desired to change the executors, and substitute for those originally named “J. A. Stone or Camp Stone.” This was done by drawing a line through the names of the orig*231inal executors and adding the above-substituted names, and a line drawn through the names of the original witnesses to the will as well as the original date.. And on March 11, 1929, decedent went to the store of ohe J. A. Stone, who assisted her by writing in the names of the newly appointed executors, redating the will 'and calling the witnesses thereto, W. W. Hardwick and H. J. Bishop.

The t>roof discloses that on that occasion decedent stated that it was her will in which she had made a change and the signature thereto was her own. The only change made was in naming two other executors as substitutes for those originally designated.

There was nothing in the proof tending to show any intention of revocation of the will as originally executed (McKissack v. Ashurst, 220 Ala. 576, 126 So. 636; Vaughn v. Vaughn, 217 Ala. 364, 116 So. 427; Kohlenberg v. Shaw, 198 Ala. 571, 73 So. 932), but rather, on the contrary, a confirmation thereof. The two witnesses, Bishop and Hardwick, signed as such in the presence of testatrix and in the presence of each other. Mr. Stone was also present. The witnesses saw the instrument and testatrix’s signature thereto, and she told them it was her will, and acknowledged her signature thereto. But the proof shows there was no resigning of the will, and appellants insist this was essential. Such, however, is not the rule. “It is well settled that the witnesses need not be present when the testator signs the will, nor need they sign their attestation in the presence of each other.” Ritchey v. Jones, 210 Ala. 205, 97 So. 736, 737.

If the signature has been previously affixed, an acknowledgment to the attesting witnesses, as here appears was the ease, that the instrument was her will, and the signature thereto was her own, sufficed to meet all requirements of due execution. Reynolds v. Massey, 219 Ala. 265, 122 So. 29.

Upon this issue the court may well have given affirmative instructions in proponent’s favor.

The only matters argued in brief of appellants relate to the question of due execution of the 'will as discussed above. We conclude, therefore, no reversible error appears, and the judgment will accordingly be here affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and BOÜDDIN and POSTER, JJ., concur.
Order entered November 26, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 13

- 00191

- CV

BALTASAR D. CRUZ, Appellant

V.

JAMES VAN SICKLE, ET AL. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. DC

- 12

- 09275



### O RDER

We GRANT appellant’s November 21, 2013 unopposed motion for an extension of time

to file a reply brief. Appellant shall file his reply brief on or before January 9, 2014.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

October 30, 2019

t1023 

# Order

Clerk October 30, 2019

158658

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 158658

COA: 343964

Oakland CC: 2006

- 210240

- FC

JERRON JASON DAVIS

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of May 29, 2019, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the

application for leave to appeal the September 19, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals. On

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is

again considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant ha s failed to meet the burden

of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
|   | /s/      Kim      Bradford                                          |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Kim      Bradford |
|--------|-------------------|

|   | Chief      Financial Officer |
|--------|------------------------------|

|   | (Principal      Financial Officer) |
|--------|------------------------------------|

|   | /s/      Kim      Bradford                                        |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Kim      Bradford, |
|--------|--------------------|

|   | President      and Chief Executive Officer, |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|

|   | (Principal      Executive Officer) |
|--------|------------------------------------|
# C_2019280EN.01003601.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 –EIB v Syria

(Case T-588/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement No 80211 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)

(2019/C 280/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement No 80211, plus default interest

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 2 184 271,58; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 2 184 271,58;

| 2. | Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principle amounts and on the contractual interest, at the annual rate of 3.5%, from 25 August 2017 until the date that payment is made; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principle amounts and on the contractual interest, at the annual rate of 3.5%, from 25 August 2017 until the date that payment is made;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.

---
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549-1004

---

FORM 8-K

---

CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



Date of Report:

October 31, 2006

---

INSIGNIA SYSTEMS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its chapter)





|Minnesota                                     | 1-13471                 | 41-1656308                      
|--------------------------------------------- | ----------------------- | --------------------------------
|(State or other jurisdictionof incorporation) | (CommissionFile Number) | (IRS EmployerIdentification No.)





|6470 Sycamore Court North, Maple Grove, Minnesota | 55369     
|------------------------------------------------- | ----------
|(Address of principal executive offices)          | (Zip Code)





|Registrants telephone number, including area code       (763) 392-6200
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)          
|                                                                       

---

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to
simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:



| | o | Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | o | Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
| | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | o | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | o | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





---

Item 2.02.    Results of
Operations and Financial Condition.



On October 31, 2006, the registrant issued a press
release disclosing financial information regarding the third quarter ended September 30, 2006. A copy of the press release is
attached as Exhibit 99.1.





Item 9.01.    Financial
Statements and Exhibits.



|(d) | Exhibits
|--- | --------



|99.1 | Press Release dated October 31, 2006.
|---- | -------------------------------------





SIGNATURES



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly
authorized.





|                         |  | Insignia Systems, Inc.
|------------------------ |  | ----------------------
|                         |  | (Registrant)          
|Date:   November 1, 2006 |  | By                    
|                         |  |                       

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 216 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 

deduction for qualified business income. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2019 

Mr. SMITH of Missouri introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

permanent the deduction for qualified business income. 

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 ‘‘Main Street Tax Cer5 tainty Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED BUSINESS INCOME 

7 MADE PERMANENT. 

8 Section 199A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

9 is amended by striking subsection (i). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS